(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "A study of OCS onshore support bases and coal export terminals"

North Carolina Stite Library 



N.C. 
Doc 



Coastal Energy Transportation Study 
Phase II, Volume I 

A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases 
and Coal Export Terminals 




m 



2\\m 



Paul D. Cribbins 

N.C. State University 

c/o UNC Institute for Transportation Research 

and Education 

P.O. Box 12551 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 




North Carolina 

Coastal Energy Impact Program 

Office of Coastal Management 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources 

and Community Development 




CEIP REPORT NO. 2 
AUGUST 1981 



To order: 

Residents of North Carolina may 
receive a single copy of a 
publication free upon request. 
Non-residents may purchase 
publications for the prices 
listed. Because of the 
production costs involved, some 
of the publications carry a 
minimal charge regardless of 
residency. Prices for these are 
indicated in the price list as 
being "for all requests". 

When ordering publications 
please provide the publication 
number and title and enclose a 
check made payable to DNRCD. For 
a complete list of CEIP 
publications - or to place an 
order - contact: 

Coastal Energy Impact Program 
Office of Coastal Management 
N.C. Department of Natural 

Resources and Community 

Development 
Box 27687 
Raleigh, NC 27611 



Series Edited by James F. Smith 
Cover Design by Jill Miller 



Coastal Energy Transportation Study 
Phase II, Volume 1 

A Study of DCS Onshore Support Bases and 
Coal Export Terminals 



by 

Paul D. Cribbins 

UNC Institute for Transportation Research and Education 

P.O. Box 12551 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 



The preparation of this report was financed through a 
Coastal Energy Impact Program grant provided by the North 
Carolina Coastal Management Program, through funds pro- 
vided by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as 
amended, which is administered by the Office of Coastal 
Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad- 
ministration. This CEIP grant was part of NOAA grant 
NA-80-AA-D-CZ149. 



Project No. 80-07 
Contract No. C-6041 



August 1981 



PREFACE 



This report summarizes work on the second phase of a three-phase study 
funded by the Coastal Energy Impact Program and conducted by the UNC Institute 
for Transportation Research and Education. Phase I of this study, conducted 
in 1980, identified and documented the transportation needs necessary to 
support a group of energy projects proposed for the coastal area of North 
Carolina. 

Following a series of interviews with industry representatives, key 
officials in coastal counties, and various State agencies in mid- 1980, major 
facilities were identified, energy use scenarios were developed, and trans- 
portation needs were assessed. Concurrent with these tasks, an impact assess- 
ment methodology was developed for conducting certain Phase II tasks. 

The results of Phase I were documented in three reports: 

1. A technical report entitled "Coastal Energy Transportation Study: 

An Analysis of Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects 
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone," Phase I Report, December 1980 
(180 pages); 

2. A summary report entitled "Coastal Energy Transportation Study: 

An Analysis of Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects 
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone," March 1981 (30 pages); and 

3. An executive summary report issued by the Office of Coastal Manage- 
ment entitled "Special Report: First Inventory of Coastal Energy 
Facilities Reported," April 1981 (2 pages). 

All of these reports are available from The UNC Institute for Transportation 
Research and Education or the Office of Coastal Management in the North 
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 

Phase II (September 1980- August 1981) is divided into two distinct parts: 

1. An assessment of impacts of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil 
and gas exploration and production activity with emphasis on the 
transportation requirements and alternative locations for on-shore 
support base(s) in North Carolina, and 

2. An assessment of impacts of coal exports from North Carolina with 
emphasis on the transportation requirements of alternative loca- 
tions and capacities of coal terminals. 



11 



Phase III (September 1981-August 1982) is an assessment of impacts of 
transport and storage of all other energy feedstocks and products, including 
crude oil, refinery products, liquified petroleum gas, peat, wood, and 
biomass material. A more detailed analysis of coal transportation to North 
Carolina's ports will also be undertaken during Phase III. Other energy- 
related projects may be added at a later date. 

This report is one of three volumes documenting the results of Phase 
II as described above. These three volumes are entitled: 

1. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: Volume 1, A Study of OCS 
Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export Terminals; 

2. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: Volume 2, An Assessment of 
Potential Impacts of Energy-Related Transportation Developments on 
North Carolina's Coastal Zone; and 

3. Coastal Energy Transportation Study: Volume 3, An Analysis of 
State and Federal Policies Affecting Major Energy Projects in 
North Carolina's Coastal Zone. 

Scheduling of tasks was designed to permit the study team to complete 
key activities in advance of certain critical dates. For example, many of 
the tasks related to OCS activity in Phase II have been completed so that 
state, regional, and local decisionmakers involved in the OCS program will 
have output prior to August 1981, the scheduled date for OCS Lease Sale #56 
by the Bureau of Land Management. 

The movement of export coal shipments through North Carolina is now 
underway. The contract with Al la-Ohio Coal Company to ship three million 
tons annually through the State Ports Authority (SPA) facilities in Morehead 
City was announced in October 1980; and the first shipment of export steam 
coal left Morehead City for Holland on May 13, 1981. Although the situation 
regarding the development of energy projects is constantly changing, this 
report is based on the most up-to-date information available at the time of 
printing. 

An additional, parallel task of this study has been the monitoring of 
the situation regarding all types of energy projects in the coastal zone. 
The dynamics of the other projects that will be included in Phase III, as 
well as those of the coal exports and OCS lease sale, are of interest. 

Since this research project began in January 1980, a significant amount 
of activity has taken place in the North Carolina coastal zone with respect 
to proposals for new or expanded energy projects. These project proposals 
have been in response to changing economic conditions and dynamic corporate 
and private investment strategies. For example, since the Phase I report 



IIX 



was written, the following captions from Raleigh and Wilmington newspapers 
reveal the "shifting attitudes" surrounding the development of the Brunswick 
Energy Company (BECO) refinery in Brunswick County, across the Cape Fear 
from Wilmington: 

11/18/80 "Building Refinery" 

1/04/81 "Refinery, Smelter Debated" 

1/28/81 "U.S. Agency Not Taking Stand on Refinery" 

2/22/81 "BECO, Environmentalists at Odds" 

3/08/81 "Low Demand (for petroleum products) Closing 

Refineries" 

4/28/81 "BECO to 'Re-evaluate' Brunswick Co. Refinery" 

4/29/81 "BECO May Consider Selling Refinery Project" 

5/15/81 "BECO Drops Plans to Build Oil Refinery" 

Continued monitoring of the local, state, national, and international 
situations that affect the potential of energy developments in North Carolina 
will be continued throughout this study. 



IV 



CONTENTS 

Section Page 

Preface ii 

Figures vi 

Tables vii 

Acknowledgments viii 

Project Advisory Committee x 

Abstract xii 

Summary and Conclusions xiii 

1.0 Industry Needs 1 

1.1 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development 

and Production 1 

1.2 Coal Export 3 

2.0 Location Alternatives for OCS Support Bases 7 

2.1 Shore Support Requirements 7 

2.2 Service Bases 7 

2.3 Siting Considerations 7 

2.4 Site Specific Needs 8 

2.5 Optimal Number of Sites 9 

2.6 Identification of North Carolina Sites 9 

2.6.1 Morehead City 9 

2.6.2 Wanchese 15 

2.6.3 Southport 19 

2.6.4 Wilmington 19 

2.7 Site Recommendations 26 

2.8 Needed Improvements 29 

3.0 Location Alternatives for Coal Export Terminals 31 

3.1 Export Demand 31 

3.1.1 Production and Export Projects 31 

3.1.2 Export Constraints 32 

3.2 Alternative Development Scenarios for 

North Carolina Ports 32 

3.2.1 Terminal Development--U. S. East Coast 32 

3.2.2 Potential for New Ports 34 

3.2.3 Vessel Requirements 34 

3.2.4 Export Scenarios 36 

3.3 Long-Range Needs 38 

3.4 North Carolina Sites 38 

3.4.1 Morehead City 38 

3.4.2 Wilmington 43 

3.5 Improvements Needed 56 

3.5 Summary 58 

Bibliography 59 



FIGURES 

Number Page 

1 Proximity of Support Base Sites to Lease 

Area No. 56 2 

2 Prospective OCS Sites--Morehead City 13 

3 Port of Morehead City SPA Terminal 14 

4 Site 21--Radio Island 16 

5 Prospective OCS Support Base Site-Wanchese 18 

6 Southport Sites 20 

7 Sites 3 and 4 21 

8 Sites 2 and C-8 23 

9 Sites 1, 9 and C-17 25 

10 OCS Sites 10 and 11 27 

11 Prospective Coal Export Terminal Sites 

Morehead City 41 

12 Site C-12 42 

13 Site C-16 44 

14 Site C-14 46 

15 Site C-7 48 

16 American Coal Export Company Site, C-20 50 

17 Hampstead/Scotts Hill— Site C-18 52 

18 Site C-17 Phase I : 53 

19 Site C-17 Phase II 54 

20 Port of Wilmington--SPA Terminal . 55 



VI 



TABLES 

Number Page 

1 Estimated Resources and Offshore Infrastructure 4 

2 Estimated Recovery Rate for Offshore Infrastructure 

Development Timetable 4 

3 Estimated Recovery Rate for Northern Tract Group 

Offshore Development Scenarios 5 

4 Port and Marine Service Infrastructure Requirements 

for Temporary OCS Service Base 10 

5 Prospective OCS Support Base Sites 11 

6 Checklist of Industry Needs OCS Support Base Sites 12 

7 Analysis of OCS Support Base Sites 28 

8 Coal Production and Export Projections 33 

9 Capacities of Planned Coal Terminals--U. S. East Coast .... 35 

10 Planned Coal Terminal s--North Carolina 37 

11 Coal Export Capacity Estimates 39 

12 Port and Marine Service Infrastructure Requirements for 

Coal Export Terminals 40 

13 Prospective Coal Terminal Sites 40 

14 Analysis of Coal Terminal Sites 57 



Vll 



ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 



SPONSOR 



COASTAL ENERGY IMPACT PROGRAM (CEIP) 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community 

Development 

Joseph W. Grimsley, Secretary 
Kenneth D. Stewart, Director, 

Office of Coastal Management 
James F. Smith, CEIP Coordinator 

RESEARCH ORGANIZATION 

INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION (ITRE) 
The University of North Carolina 

Edwin W. Hauser, Project Manager and Chairman of 
Advisory Committee; 
Deputy Director, ITRE 

Paul D. Cribbins, Co-Principal Investigator 
Professor, Civil Engineering 
North Carolina State University 

Paul D. Tschetter, Co-Principal Investigator 
Associate Professor, Sociology 
East Carolina University 

John R. Maiolo, Research Associate 

Chairman, Department of Sociology and Anthropology 

East Carolina University 

Mark Fisch, Research Associate 
Assistant Professor, Sociology 
East Carolina University 

R. Daniel Latta, P.E., Project Associate 
Graduate Student, Business Administration 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Tom Marzilli, Project Associate 
Graduate Student, Sociology 
East Carolina University 



Vlll 



Reba Lewis, Project Associate 
Graduate Student, Sociology 
East Carolina University 

Paul S. Cribbins, Project Associate 

Legal Consultant 

Institute for Transportation Research and Education 

Tom Messick, Project Assistant 
Student, Mechanical Engineering 
North Carolina State University 

Pamela L. Godwin 

Project Secretary 

Institute for Transportation Research and Education 

Zaneta G. Walker 

Research Assistant 

Institute for Transportation Research and Education 



IX 



PROJECT ADVISORY COMMITTEE 



Steven Benton, Head, Technical Services 

Office of Coastal Management 

NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 

Jerry Ganey, Administrative Assistant to Executive Director 
State Ports Authority 

Ralph L. Godwin, Executive Director 
Wilmington Industrial Development, Inc. 

Billy Ray Hall, Assistant Director 
Division of Policy Development 
NC Department of Administration 

Edd Hauser, Deputy Director 

UNC Institute for Transportation Research and Education 

Sam Holcomb, Transportation Planner 

Systems Planning Division 

NC Department of Transportation 

Mary Ellen Marsden, Research Associate 
Institute for Research in Social Science 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Bruce Muga, Professor of Civil Engineering 
Duke University 

Angela G. Skelton, Associate Director 
North Carolina Petroleum Council 

James F. Smith, CEIP Coordinator 

Office of Coastal Management 

NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 

(ex-officio member) 

Yates Sorrell, Technical Director 
Alternative Energy Corporation 

Roy Stevens, Executive Director 

Carteret County Economic Development Council, Inc. 



Eric A. Vernon, Coordinator 

OCS Task Force, Office of Marine Affairs 

NC Department of Administration 

John Warren, Senior Environmental Planner 
Operations Analysis Division 
Research Triangle Institute 

Paul Wilms, Head, Planning and Environmental Studies 

Environmental Management Division 

NC Department of Natural Resources and Community Development 



XI 



ABSTRACT 

Following an earlier study (Phase I) that focused on the identification 
and documentation of transportation facilities necessary to support major 
energy projects proposed for the coastal area of North Carolina, this study 
concentrates oh two of the projects (1) on-shore support bases for Outer 
Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration and (2) coal export terminals. 

In order to develop location alternatives for OCS support bases, shore 
support requirements are identified, 16 alternative sites are described, and 
a parametric analysis is utilized to select the most promising sites. Site- 
specific recommendations regarding infrastructure requirements and transpor- 
tation impacts are provided. 

In the case of coal exports, it is anticipated that overseas demand for 
steam coal, which exploded in 1980, will continue to grow during the decade. 
But congestion at major coal ports along the eastern seaboard--Hampton 
Roads, Baltimore, and Philadelphia-- is not expected to be alleviated for 
several years. Recent estimates of delays to colliers desiring to load at 
Hampton Roads indicate that as many as 150 vessels are anchored and experiencing 
waiting periods of 50 to 60 days each. These delays and the resulting 
demurrage charges which average $15,000 per day per ship are an understandable 
source of concern to the industry. 

In response to these problems, nearly two dozen U.S. ports have announced 
plans for new coal export facilities. This study explores plans for coal 
port expansion on the east coast, attempts to determine needed capacity, 
identifies major bottlenecks including vessel size and channel depths, and 
seeks location alternatives for export terminals. It is evident that coal 
shippers are not only expanding existing export facilities in traditional 
eastern coal ports, but also turning to ports that have exported little or 
no coal in the past. Projected annual throughput of coal exports from North 
Carolina's deepwater ports during the next decade are projected to be between 
54 and 67 million tons by 1990. This report identifies eleven alternative 
terminal sites and assesses their potential impacts on the Coastal Study Area. 



Xll 



SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

Volume 1, A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export Terminals, 
addresses two major projects: 

1. Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) oil and gas exploration 
activity; and 

2. Impacts of coal export movement from North Carolina. 

Following an assessment of industry needs for each of these projects, 
transportation requirements and location alternatives for OCS on-shore support 
bases and coal export terminals were determined as follows. 

Location Alternatives for OCS Support Bases 

Sixteen prospective site locations for an OCS support base were identified 
and briefly described. Following field inspection, each of these sites (see 
Table 5) was reviewed to ascertain its compliance with a checklist of industry 
needs. Specific port and marine infrastructure requirements needed to establish 
temporary OCS service bases along the North Carolina coast were used as guide- 
lines in this process. It should be noted that four of the 16 sites under 
consideration (C-5, C-8, C-13, and C-17) are also evaluated in Chapter 3 as 
potential coal terminal locations. 

Sixteen measures of merit were used in an updated parametric analysis of 
the support base sites. A preliminary analysis was presented in Table 3-4 of 
the Phase I report, but that analysis has been modified with respect to sites 
and merit measures to reflect the most current information available as of 
April 1981. 

If all of the merit measures were equally weighted, a simple summation 
would reveal the best of the candidate sites. But this is obviously not the 
case, and engineering judgment is needed to narrow the list of candidates. 
Two outstanding sites were identified: Sites 17 and 23 (see Table 7). 
Because of their location in an existing SPA terminal at Wilmington and Morehead 
City, respectively, each is in the enviable position of having most of the 
necessary port and marine service infrastructure requirements already provided. 
Having relatively little demand for capital expenditures and the ability to 
begin operation almost immediately will make each of these sites especially 
attractive to the oil and gas drilling companies. Each has at least 1,000 
feet of wharf and 35 feet of channel depth available at the site. Each is in 
a port area previously zoned for industrial use; good rail and highway facilities 
are available; and storage areas, cranes, fresh water, and bunkering facilities 
are already provided. With the possible exception of Site 22, which has been 
earmarked as a bulk phosphate facility for the North Carolina Phosphate Company, 
all other sites would require substantial investments of time and capital to 
acquire the necessary infrastructure. 

xiii 



Although there is little to choose between the two sites, it is recom- 
mended that Site 23 be given top priority as a support base site because of 
its proximity to the Northern Tract Group in Lease Area No. 56. Both its 
air and water distances to the lease area are approximately half of those 
for Site 17, and Site 23 is much closer to the open ocean. It is further 
recommended that, if exploratory drilling for OCS oil and gas is undertaken 
in 1981 or soon thereafter, the State of North Carolina through its appropri- 
ate agencies should take the steps necessary to make five to ten acres of 
land at Site 23 on the SPA terminal property in Morehead City available for 
use as a temporary onshore support base site. If a second support base is 
needed, steps should be taken to make a similar amount of land available on 
the SPA terminal in Wilmington at or near Site 17. 

Location Alternatives for Coal Export Terminals 

Utilizing U.S. coal production and export projections from a series of 
recent national studies, estimates of East Coast coal terminal capacity were 
prepared. Export potential for the South Atlantic range of ports, with 
particular emphasis on North Carolina's two deepwater ports, was then explored. 

Firm commitments or announced plans to locate coal terminals in the 
State have been reported in the news media for five locations. If all of 
these plans materialize and if the announced tonnages are realistic, as much 
as 54 to 67 million tons of coal could be exported from North Carolina by 
the end of the decade. 

Finally, eleven prospective sites in the Coastal Study Area were 
described and analyzed to ascertain their suitability as future locations 
for coal export terminals. Specific recommendations for sites in Morehead 
City, along the Cape Fear River, and offshore were itemized. It is anticipated 
that, during Phase III of this study, alternative transportation modes or 
systems that could relieve anticipated bottlenecks in the coal-haul railroad 
network or other transportation networks will be investigated. 

Analysis of the coal sites was complicated by the fact that several of 
the sites, regardless of whether or not they are the best sites, have 
already been selected by coal companies as export terminal sites. As a 
result, Sites C-12 and C-16 in Morehead City and C-7 and C-20 in Wilmington 
have been pre-empted for coal terminals in the past six months. In fact, 
most of the better sites have either been purchased or are presently under 
option. 

With these constraints in evidence and considering the findings revealed 
in this chapter, the following tentative recommendations are proposed: 

Morehead City Sites 

1. That because the planned throughput of the Al la-Ohio Valley (C-16) 
and Gulf Interstate (C-12) terminals will far exceed the practical 
capacity of the railroad line through Morehead City, future expan- 
sion of these terminals should be very carefully evaluated. 



XIV 



2. That no additional coal terminals be approved in the Morehead 
harbor until major changes are implemented in the land trans- 
portation link for coal inbound to the port. These changes could 
include a rail bypass, slurry pipeline, conveyor system, barge 
service, or some combination of systems. 

Cape Fear River Sites 

3. That, other than a moderate-sized terminal on SPA property (Site 
C-17), no additional coal terminals should be sited on the east 
side of the Cape Fear River because of railroad grade crossing 
problems in Wilmington. 

4. That, if additional throughput capacity is required along the Cape 
Fear River, Site C-5 (north of Pfizer Chemical Company) and Site 
C-8 (north of Town Creek) should be considered as the best of the 
remaining available sites. 

Offshore Sites 

5. That, if any coal companies desire to develop an offshore export 
terminal complex to load coal in deep water (>60 feet). Site C-18 
(Hampstead/Scotts Hill) and possibly Site C-14 (near U.S. 70 and 
N.C. 24 west of Morehead City) should be initially considered. 



XV 



1.0 INDUSTRY NEEDS 



Seemingly endless increases in the price of imported crude oil coupled 
with recent political upheaval in the Middle East have underscored this 
nation's vulnerability in continuing to depend on foreign sources for a 
large part of our energy supply. The need to increase our domestic resource 
production and reduce our consumption of scarce fuels is well documented. 
Recent administrations have stressed the need for greater energy independence. 
The goal of reducing our oil imports in 1990 to one-half the current level 
has been suggested. 

One of the most desirable ways to attain this goal is to encourage 
domestic production of oil and gas--both onshore and offshore. On the 
demand side, the need for imported oil can be substantially reduced by 
converting oil-fired electric generating plants to coal-fired plants. Each 
of these means of attaining greater self sufficiency will impact different 
areas of the country in varying degrees. In the Southeast, the most promising 
location for increased domestic oil and gas production is the Proposed 1981 
Outer Continental Shelf (DCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale No. 56, where the U. S. 
Geological Survey (USGS) has estimated there are 1.4 billion barrels of oil 
and 2.5 trillion cubic feet of gas in the leasing area. It is assumed that 
production, which is expected to peak in 1993, will be gathered from the 
offshore production areas and transported ashore to landfalls in Georgia and 
North Carolina. 

The export of coal from the U.S. is currently increasing. Steam coal 
is already beginning to move out of several South Atlantic ports other than 
Hampton Roads, which has long been the world's leading coal port. Although 
some of these shipments may be destined for domestic generating plants in 
New England and Florida, most of the initial demand for export steam coal is 
originating in Western Europe where conversion from oil to coal in the 
generation of electricity has taken place much more rapidly than it has in 
this country. 

Just how these two energy developments--OCS oil and gas production and 
coal exportation--wil 1 impact the Coastal Study Area of North Carolina and 
what specific concerns the State should address to mitigate their impacts, 
will be described in the following sections. 

1.1 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development and Production 

The Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared for proposed Lease 
Sale 56 by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) indicates that 286 tracts 
totalling 1.6 million acres in Federal waters offshore North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Georgia, and Florida will be offered for sale in August 1981. 
These tracts, which are located from 16 to 111 nautical miles off the coast 
in water depths of 55 to 6,890 feet, are depicted in Figure 1. Sale 



tracts are divided into two geographic groups according to their proximity 
to likely shore-based services. The Northern Tract Group includes 130 
tracts off the North Carol i-na coast while the Southern Tract Group encompasses 
156 tracts off the coasts of north Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. 
Existing commercial ports in the South Atlantic region are also shown. 

Resource and offshore infrastructure estimates for proposed Sale 55, 
which were furnished to BLM by the Conservation District, Eastern Region, 
provide an insight into industry requirements. Tables 1 and 2 summarize 
estimates for resources and offshore infrastructure and provide an estimated 
timetable for development utilizing low (5% probability), mean, and high 
(95% probability) recovery estimates. These estimates in turn provide the 
basis for Northern Tract Group Offshore Development Scenarios (Table 3) 
which help predict the estimated number of wells and platforms as well as 
daily production of oil and gas. 

Because the Coastal Study Area of North Carolina will most likely be 
impacted only by exploration activities in the Northern Tract Group, estimates 
of industry needs in Phase II of this investigation will focus on the 130 
tracts in the Northern Tract Group. OCS oil and gas development activities 
resulting from Lease Sale 55 could eventually produce a multiplicity of 
impacts on the quality of life in the Study Area. Chapter 2 (Location 
Alternatives for OCS Support Bases) of this study will be concerned only 
with the requirements for and impacts created by onshore support facilities 
required during the exploratory drilling period. Support facility require- 
ments for the development drilling period will be addressed during Phase III 
of the study. 

1.2 Coal Export 

Overseas demand for steam coal, which exploded last year, is expected to 
continue to grow during 1981; but congestion at major coal ports along the 
eastern seaboard--Hampton Roads, Baltimore, and Philadelphia--is not expected 
to be alleviated for the next year or two. Recent estimates of delays to 
colliers desiring to load steam coal at Hampton Roads indicate that up to 
150 vessels are anchored and experiencing waiting periods of 50 to 60 days 
each. Coal buyers are understandably concerned by the lengthy delays and 
resulting demurrage charges which industry sources indicate have been running 
at $18 per ton and higher. Not only are these demurrage charges passed 
along to buyers, but the congestion has also cost the U.S. coal industry 
about 8 to 10 million tons of lost sales over the past year. ^ 

There appears to be little doubt that the demand for export coal will 
increase drastically during the coming decade. According to a recent study 
published by a federal government coal export study group, port authorities, 
railroads, and coal products will provide the impetus for an order of magni- 
tude increase in U.S. coal exports in the next five years. The Interagency 
Coal Export Task Force projects that U.S. coal export terminal capacity 
could expand from the congested 94.4 million ton level of 1980 to as much 



^"Strong Demand for Steam Coal Expected Abroad," The Journal of Commerce , 
February 17, 1981. 



TABLE 1. ESTIMATED RESOURCES AND OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE 



Low(5%) 



Mean 



High(95%) 



A. Resources 

1 . Total Production 

a. Oil (billion barrels) 

b. Gas (trillion cubic feet) 

2. Daily Peak Production 

a. Oil (barrels) 

b. Gas (million cubic feet) 



0.8 


1.4 


2.1 


1.4 


2.5 


3.5 


216,700 


326,800 


, 490,100 


384.9 


617 


841 



B. Offshore Infrastructure 

1. Wells Drilled 

a. Exploratory/Delineation 

b. Development 

2. Platforms Installed 

3. Pipelines Constructed (miles)^ 



101 
360 

13 

140 



101 
1,299 

56 

340 



101 
1,299 

56 

540 



Sources: USGS, 1979 and BLM, 1980. 
3BLM estimate. 



TABLE 2. ESTIMATED RECOVERY RATE FOR OFFSHORE INFRASTRUCTURE 

DEVELOPMENT TIMETABLE 









Wells D 


rilled 






Platforms 


Installed 


Pipe 


ines Constri 
(miles)'' 


jcted 






Exploration^ 






Development'' 




Year 


Low 


Medium 


High 


Low 


Medium 


High 


Low 


Medium 


High 


Low 


Medium 


High 


1982 


15 


15 


15 






















1983 


15 


15 


15 






















1984 


15 


15 


15 






















1985 


15 


15 


15 






















1986 


15 


15 


15 






















1987 


15 


15 


15 






















1988 








21 


96 


96 


3 


12 




12 


40 


60 


90 


1989 








63 


280 


280 


3 


11 




11 


30 


60 


90 


. 1990 








84 


264 


264 


3 


11 




11 


20 


60 


90 


1991 








77 


264 


264 


2 


11 




11 


20 


60 


90 


1992 








62 


264 


264 


2 


11 




11 


20 


60 


90 


1993 








42 


131 


131 










10 


40 


90 


1994 








12 






















TOTAL 


101 


101 


101 


360 


1299 


1299 


13 


56 




56 


140 


340 


540 



Sources: USGA, 1979 and BLM, 1980. 

^Delineation wells are included with exploratory wells in this and all subsequent tables. 

"BLM estimate by year. 



TABLE 3. ESTIMATED RECOVERY RATE FOR NORTHERN TRACT GROUP 
OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS 



Northern Tract Group Scenarios 






Wells Drilled 




Platforms Installed 




Daily Production 






Exploratory 
Low High 


Development 
Low High 


Oil (MBOPD) 


Gas (MMCFP) 


Year 


Low High 


Low High 


Low High 


1982 




















1983 


4 


4 
















1985 


9 


9 
















1986 


12 


12 
















1987 


12 


12 
















1988 


9 


9 
















1989 









16 


2 





6 





10 


1990 






14 


80 


2 6 


8 


36 


15 


62 


1991 






42 


160 


2 8 


34 


96 


60 


165 


1992 






56 


200 


2 9 


67 


171 


120 


295 


1993 






42 


124 




92 


218 


165 


378 


1994 






12 







100 


198 


178 


339 


1995 












90 


179 


160 


307 


2000 












48 


108 


87 


186 


2005 












30 


66 


53 


113 



TOTAL 



46 46 



166 580 



25 



Source: BLM, 1980. 



as 277.8 million tons annually by 1985. ^ This projection is based on terminal 
expansion of 23 million tons already underway plus commitments for another 
160.4 million tons. Even the most conservative estimates indicate a doubling 
of coal export capacity to 200 million tons by 1985 accompanied by a reduction 
in port congestion by that time. 

Nearly two dozen ports have announced plans for new coal export facili- 
ties.^ On the East Coast, expansion is underway not only at Norfolk, Newport 
News, and Baltimore — currently the most active coal ports — but also at 
Camden, New Jersey, Philadelphia; Morehead City; Wilmington, North Carolina; 
Charleston; Savannah; and Brunswick, Georgia. In fact, if all the recently 
announced plans for export terminals materialize, coal could become the 
region's major export commodity during the 1980' s. How the movement of 
these tonnages of export steam coal through North Carolina and its major 
ports will impact the Coastal Study Area will be explored in the chapter, 
"Location Alternatives for Coal Export Terminals." 



^Interagency Coal Export Task Force, "Report on Ports and Ocean 
Transportation." December 1, 1980. 

^"Shaping Up to Ship Out," Forbes , February 16, 1981. 



2.0 LOCATION ALTERNATIVES FOR OCS SUPPORT BASES 



2. 1 Shore Support Requirements 

Three scenarios for OCS oil and gas development, which were prepared by 
the Bureau of Land Management in 1980, were identified in Chapter 1. 
Resources and offshore infrastructure needed for each scenario, as well as 
development timetables, were also provided. From these estimates, assump- 
tions can be made concerning the onshore facility requirements for proposed 
Lease Sale No. 56. As previously indicated, the principal concern for the 
Coastal Study Area is to determine the need for and potential location of 
onshore support facilities in the form of service bases and/or heliports. 

2. 2 Service Bases 

Previous exploration activities in this country, especially in the Gulf 
of Mexico, suggest that onshore support needs are met by establishing 
temporary service bases during initial exploration activities and permanent 
service bases once the oil companies have identified commercial quantities 
of oil or gas. Temporary service bases are usually established in existing 
harbors where adequate wharfage, storage, supply, and bunkering facilities 
are available. Ports that are congested by recreational boating or commercial 
shipping are generally avoided if more desirable port facilities are avail- 
able. Permanent service bases normally provide the same support services 
available at a temporary base, but more storage area is required to handle 
larger quantities or material associated with a higher level of offshore 
activity. If existing developed ports are located within 100 to 150 miles 
of the OCS activity, as they are in North Carolina, temporary bases will 
most likely be developed. 

2.3 Siting Considerations 

Whether temporary or permanent, most service bases in the United States 
have been owned and operated by the energy exploration companies. Each 
company selects its service base sites independently, but there are certain 
trends in selection that facilitate the identification of optimum sites for 
development. During the initial stages of exploration, energy companies 
might logically establish a temporary service base in an existing port if 
adequate facilities are available and good service can be expected. The 
companies may prefer to lease or rent such facilities to reduce initial 
capital expenditures. Whether owned, leased, or rented to the exploration 
company, state officials have a responsibility to the citizens of North 
Carolina to see that the selected service base sites are those which promise 
the optimum combination of economic and social benefits and will have the 
least impact on the environment and quality of life in the Coastal Study 
Area. 



Because exploration on the South Atlantic coast is not yet underway, it 
is reasonable to assume that one or more temporary service bases will be 
required in North Carolina to serve the Northern Tract leases. The following 
physical characteristics and facilities* are usually required for a temporary 
service base to be located in an existing harbor: 

1. Least feasible distance to offshore activity, 

2. All weather harbor, 

3. Channel depth of 15 to 20 feet, 

4. 200 feet of available wharf, 

5. 5 to 10 acres of adjacent flat (<2% slope) land, 

6. Highway access, 

7. Railroad access, and 

8. Air access. 

From the Northern Tract Group Development Scenarios shown in Table 3 
the following estimates of the required number of temporary service bases 
have been developed by BLM: 1984, 1; 1986, 1-3; 1988, 1-3. (Note: The 
number of service bases required would be the same for low, mean, and high 
resource recovery estimates.) 

The precise number of bases will be dependent upon such factors as the 
number and distribution of offshore holdings, the number of companies 
involved, the schedule of exploration activity, the availability of land and 
facilities, and the number of companies served from each lease. Thus, it 
appears that planning for a minimum of one temporary service base by 1984 
and perhaps one or two additional bases by 1986 should be initiated. 

2.4 Site Specific Needs 

A temporary service base should be able to provide the necessary shore 
support capability, including the transfer of workers, equipment, and 
supplies, for offshore drilling operations. A typical service base will 
provide berthage for crewboats and supply vessels, wharf space for trans- 
ferring supplies, warehouse and open storage areas, and office space. A 
heliport may also be provided at the support base, but there are strong 
arguments for establishing helicopter facilities at existing airports where 
air traffic control equipment already exists and where personnel can be 
transferred more rapidly from commercial aircraft to the drilling sites. 

Drilling companies will often seek service base sites in ports closest 
to the offshore activity if land can be leased on a short term basis. 



*R. F. Weston, Inc. "Methodology for Assessing Onshore Impacts for 
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development," Volume II, 1980. 



As a result, ports with easy access to the open ocean, adequate turning 
basis, and uncongested inner harbors are potentially attractive if they also 
contain the necessary port and marine service infrastructure. Such infra- 
structure includes water, utilities, transportation access, and medical, 
waste disposal, and communication facilities. Specific needs for temporary 
service bases in North Carolina, which are summarized in Table 4, are a 
modification of requirements previously identified in the Weston study and 
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Lease Sale 56. 

2.5 Optimal Number of Sites 

A review of the geography of Lease Area 56 quickly reveals that the 
Southern Tract Group would best be served by support bases located in 
Jacksonville, Brunswick, Savannah, or Charleston while the Northern Tract 
Group most logically would be served by one or more bases in an existing 
North Carolina port. Tentative site locations in each of the four ports-- 
Morehead City, Wanchese, Southport, and Wilmington--were identified during 
the early part of this study and were summarized in Table 2-1 of the Phase I 
Report.^ Prospective site locations, which have been updated to reflect 
certain changes in land use since late 1980, are listed in Table 5. Each of 
the 14 sites was visited by the project staff in July 1980, and again in 
March 1981 to ascertain its suitability for consideration as a future 
temporary support base location. 

Before an evaluation of alternative sites could be undertaken, it was 
necessary to attain greater specificity in the site requirements. To this 
end the checklist of industry needs compiled in Table 6 enabled project 
personnel to gather and screen data that would subsequently assist them in 
reaching decisions relative to support base recommendations. 

2.6 Identification of North Carolina Sites 

A brief description of each of the 16 prospective sites, along with its 
strength and limitations, is provided in the following paragraphs. 

2.6.1 Morehead City --As indicated in Figure 2, the four prospective sites 
in the Morehead City area are located in an industrial area near the existing 
State Ports Authority terminal. Each is conveniently located with respect 
to the 40-foot deep turning basin and ship channel and is only 3h miles from 
the open ocean. Sites preceded by a "C" designator indicate that the 
location is being considered both as a coal terminal and as an OCS supply 
base site. 

Site C-13: Marsh Island --Marsh Island, which is located just north of 
the SPA terminal (extreme right side of Figure 3) is undeveloped and is 
presently being used as a spoil dumping ground by the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers. Some lightly wooded areas, along with some wetlands on the 
northern side of the island, make up most of the terrain. The east side 



^ITRE staff, "Coastal Energy Transportation Study," Phase I Report, 
December 1980. 



TABLE 4. PORT AND MARINE SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE 
REQUIREMENTS FOR TEMPORARY OCS SERVICE BASE 



1. Land 

2. Waterfront 

3. Channel Depth 

4. Fuel 

5. Fresh Water 

6. Solid Wastes 

7. Noise 

8. Communication 

9. Medical 

10. Highway Access 

11. Rail Access 

12. Air Access 



5-10 acres of flat land (<2% slope) on 
an all weather harbor 

200-400 linear feet of wharf 

15-20 feet 

26,000 bbl/rig/year during drilling 

5.2 million gallons/rig/year during drilling 

Facilities to handle up to 6 tons per day 
(including hazardous wastes) 

Up to 85 decibels, 24 hours/day 

Telephone and radio facilities 

Hospital within 10-15 minutes of travel time 

Minimum two-lane service road that will 
support truck loads 

Spur line and storage tracks 

Helipad on base or heliport at nearby airport 
(less than 30 minutes travel time) 



10 



TABLE 5. PROSPECTIVE OCS SUPPORT BASE SITES 



Site 



Location 



Acreage 



Morehead City 

C-13 
21 
22 
23 



Marsh Island 

Radio Island 

Existing SPA Terminal (IMW corner) 

Existing SPA Terminal (west side) 



50 
10 
10 
10 



Wanchese 
15 



Adjacent to harbor 



10 



Southport 

C-5 
6 



North of Pfizer Chemical Co. 
South of Pfizer Chemical Co. 



350 
200 



Wilmington 

1 
2 

3 

4 
C-8 

9 
10 

11 

C-17 



Eagle Island 

South of Barnards Creek 

North of Snow's Cut 

North of Snow's Cut 

North of Town Creek 

South of NC 133 on Brunswick R. 

North of W. R. Grace Co. on NE 

Cape Fear River 
West of General Electric Co. on 

NE Cape Fear River 
North end of existing SPA Terminal 



50 

50 

50-100 

50-100 
250 
220 

70 

50 
10 



11 



TABLE 6. CHECKLIST OF INDUSTRY NEEDS OCS SUPPORT BASE SITES 



Land 


Water 


Supplies 


• Area 


• Channel Depth 


• Water 


• Topography 


: • Wharf Length 


• Utilities 


• Land Use 


: • Access to Open Water 


• Fuel 


• Ownership 


• Proximity to Channel 


• Solid Wastes 


Transportation 


Distance to Lease Area 


Competition fo 


• Highway Access 


• Air Distance 




• Rail Access 


• Water Distance 




• Air Access 






Employment 


Permittability 




• Direct 






• Indirect 







12 




13 



of the island is approximately 500 feet from the 12-foot channel of the 
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. The 40-foot channel does not extend north 
of the parallel bridges (U.S. 70 and B&MRR). Each of these bridges provides 
a horizontal clearance of 80 feet for vessel traffic; the fixed highway 
bridge has a vertical clearance of 65 feet mean high water (MHW) while the 
bascule railroad bridge has a vertical clearance of 4.0 feet (MHW) when 
closed. As shown in Figure 2, there is no rail or highway access to Marsh 
Island. 

Site 21: Radio Island --A site encompassing approximately ten acres of 
land owned by SPA and located on the west side of Radio Island has been 
identified as a prospective supply base site. As depicted in Figure 4, this 
site is just north of the aviation fuel terminal on Radio Island and is 
close to the 40-foot channel. Good highway and rail access are available on 
Radio Island, but rail traffic may become congested when a planned coal 
terminal (C-12: Gulf Interstate Company Site) on Radio Island becomes 
operational. 

Site 22: Existing SPA Terminal (northwest corner) --Figure 3 reveals 
that there is little open land on the west side of the Morehead City channel 
for expansion of the existing SPA terminal. The open area near the water 
tower in the center of the terminal has already been committed to Al la-Ohio 
Valley Coal Company for an export terminal. One remaining parcel of undevel- 
oped land still remains at the northwest corner of the SPA property, just 
west of the phosphate storage area. The site indicated in Figure 2 is 
adjacent to a relatively shallow access channel (Calico Creek) which serves 
a yacht basin and barges discharging phosphate from the Texasgulf Company 
facility on the Pamlico River. Because it is north of the bridges previously 
described. Site 22 would have the same access problems inherent in Site 
C-13, e.g., limited channel depths and bridge clearances. 

I ■• Site 23: Existing SPA Terminal (west side) --Just south of U.S. 70 and 
I along the west side of the present State Ports Authority terminal is another 
1 prospective support base location--Site 23. This site is the only one 
' identified so far that already meets most of the port and marine service 

infrastructure requirements listed in Table 4. It has over 1,000 lineal 
\ feet of wharf with a 35-foot channel alongside, good rail and highway 

j facilities into the site, paved storage areas and nearby warehouses, and 
> access to utilities and communications. Most importantly, it is ready for 

' almost immediate occupancy without major capital expenditures and presumably 

would face less stringent permitting requirements because of the industrial 

nature of present port activity at the terminal. 

2.6.2 Wanchese 

Site 15: Adjacent to Wanchese Boat Harbor --The general location of a 
prospective OCS supply base site adjacent to the Wanchese boat harbor on 
Roanoke Island is illustrated in Figure 5. Site 15 is a 10-acre parcel of 
land on the north side of the harbor between Broad Creek and the boat 
harbor. Because of the relatively isolated location on Roanoke Island, the 
site would have no rail access and somewhat limited highway and air access. 



15 




< 

—J 

I — I 

"vT O 

I — r 

UJ dl 

CD I 

1—1 I 

LU 1 — 

CM 



I/O 



16 



KWft lWaiUM 





Most of the prospective OCS support base sites in the Morehead 
City area are clustered around the State Ports Authority 
Terminal. Site 23 (above) along the west side of the terminal 
and Sites 22 and C-13 (belov/) alonn Calico Creek are shown. 



**"i^-»^ 



^V Tt 




fr^^!^# A. 



17 



Due to its proximity to the northernmost tracts in the Northern Tract 
Group, Site 15 is closer to the Lease Area than most of the other prospec- 
tive sites. However, this advantage is offset by the fact that supply 
vessels would have to negotiate a relatively unstable channel from the ocean 
at Oregon Inlet and then face draft limitations caused by the 8^-foot channel 
restriction. Several miles of dredging would be required to deepen the 
channel into Wanchese to the desired 15-20 feet. 

2.6.3 Southport 

Site C-5: North of Pfizer Chemical Company --A 350-acre site just north 
of Pfizer Chemical Company on the west banks of the Cape Fear River (Figure 
6) has been identified as a prospective OCS supply base or coal terminal 
site. Due to its size and a combination of location factors. Site C-5 might 
be especially attractive as a coal terminal location but will also be 
discussed in this section. Most of the site is on relatively high ground 
(farmland and woods) but is bordered along the river by marshlands and tidal 
flats and along its northern boundary by the intake canal for Carolina Power 
and Light Company's nuclear power plant. No wharf or pier facilities are 
available. The site is approximately 1,500 feet from the 38- foot ship channel 
and is only five miles from the mouth of the Cape Fear River. Highway 
access to N.C. 133 is provided by a good two-lane road into the site. The 
nearest rail access is the U.S. government-owned line serving the Sunny 
Point Army terminal north of the site. A spur line almost five miles in 
length and permission to use the federal rail link would be required. If 
used as a coal site, a tressle over the wetlands and a 1,700-foot T-head pier 
to the shipping channel would also be required. 

Site 6: South of Pfizer Chemical Company -A 200-acre site next to the 
ferry landing south of Pfizer Chemical Company (Figure 7) was identified in 
the Phase I report as a tentative OCS support base site; however, it has 
been learned that this parcel of land, which is owned by Pfizer, is not 
available for sale. It will therefore not receive further consideration as 
a potential site for a temporary support base. 

2.6.4. Wilmington 

Sites 3 and 4: North of Snow's Cut --Two similar, 50 to 100 acre sites 
just north of the Snow's Cut section of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
(Figure 7) were identified in Phase I as prospective OCS support base sites. 
The sites are located between the 12-foot Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 
(AIWW) channel and the U.S. Coast Guard Station. Good highway service is 
provided by River Road which connects to U.S. 421. The nearest rail service 
is about seven miles away. These sites are currently without wharf facilities 
and lie almost a mile from the 38-foot ship channel in the Cape Fear River. 

Site 2: South of Barnard's Creek --Site 2 encompases about 50 acres on 
the east side of the Cape Fear River just south of Barnard's Creek (Figure 
8). The site is in a larger 2,000-acre area surrounded by residential 
development and by the Echo Farms and Country Club Property. Rail service 
ends about one mile north of the site, but River Road provides good highway 



19 



57'30 




OUGHT 



"58 



FIGURE 6 
SOUTHPORT SITES 



20 







CAROLINA 

BEACH 



FIGURE 7 
SITES 3 & 4 



21 




i 



Several of the potential OCS support base sites are located 
along the Cape Fear River. Sites 3 and 4 (above) along the 
Intracoastal Waterway at Snow's Cut and Site 10 (below) on 
the Northeast Cape Fear River are shown. 




22 




CO 



00 
I 

C_3 



o3 

d; cm 



CJ3 00 
I— I UJ 



00 



23 



access. Site 2 is approximately 20 miles from the ocean and would require 
extensive dredging to reach the ship channel almost 3,000 feet away. Primary 
nursery ground in the Cape Fear River may restrict dredging activities. 

Site C-8: North of Town Creek — A 250-acre site on the west side of the 
Cape Fear River that might serve as either a coal terminal or an DCS support 
base is identified in Figure 8. The site is mostly on high ground with 
marsh areas and tidal flats bordering the site on the north and south sides. 
Land in this area has not yet been developed; there is no rail or highway 
access into the site although the government-owned railroad is about three 
miles west and N.C. 133 borders the site on the west. River frontage totals 
3,000 feet and distance to the deepwater channel is also about 3,000 feet. 

Site 1: Eagle Island --Relatively undeveloped Eagle Island (Figure 9) 
includes over 1,000 acres of land that have been created by spoil disposal 
from the Cape Fear River. This area has been used by the Corps of Engineers 
for many years, and new dredge disposal areas would have to be found if 
Eagle Island were to be utilized for other purposes. Its strategic location 
across the river from the existing State Ports Authority terminal actually 
makes it an extremely attractive site for future expansion of Wilmington 
public port facilities. U.S. 17, 74, and 76 provide excellent highway access 
at the north end of the island, and nearby rail access from the Seaboard 
Coastline Railroad is possible. The east side of Eagle Island is very close 
to the ship channel. Even if the island were designated for future development 
of the SPA terminal, there also appears to be adequate space for possible 
location of a temporary CCS supply base. 

Site 9: South of N.C. 133 on Brunswick Rive r--Just west of Eagle Island 
across the Brunswick River (Figure 9), the SPA owns approximately 220 acres 
of land, a portion of which might be considered as a prospective support 
base site. Near the community of Old Towne, the site has good access to N.C. 
133 but would require a two-mile rail spur. Also, the Brunswick River would 
require extensive dredging because of silting in much of the lower portion 
of the river. No wharf facilities are presently available, and the site is 
almost 3,000 feet from the ship channel in the Cape Fear River. Significant 
environmental problems would have to be addressed at this location. 

Site C-17: North End of Existing SPA Terminal --In the next chapter, 
Site C-17 will be described in terms of its potential as a coal terminal 
site. If present plans of the Carolina Coal Export Corporation to utilize 
this location for an export terminal fail to materialize, it should receive 
serious consideration as an CCS support base site. For the same reasons 
documented in the discussion of Site 23 in Morehead City--the existence of 
most of the necessary port and marine service infrastructure requirements — 
this site should receive serious consideration. It has more than 1,000 
lineal feet of wharf along the 38-foot channel of the Cape Fear River as 
well as good storage, service, and transportation access. Port officials 
have indicated that, should the site be developed as a coal terminal, other 
open areas at the SPA terminal could be designated for support base activities. 



24 




25 



Site 10: North of W. R. Grace Company on Northeast Cape Fear River -- 
Situated on high ground along the west bank of the Northeast Cape Fear 
River, Site 10 is located just north of W. R. Grace Company (Figure 10). It 
contains 70 to 80 acres of undeveloped land and has excellent highway and 
rail access to U.S. 421 and the SCLRR which border the site on the west. 
Although no wharf facilities exist, the site is only about 3,000 feet from 
the upstream limit of the federal dredging project and the nearby ship 
turning basin where a 25-foot channel is maintained. An important concern 
in considering Sites 10 and 11 for prospective OCS supply bases is their 
excessive distance (30 to 35 miles) from the open ocean. 

Site 11: West of General Electric Company on Northeast Cape Fear 
River --Just upstream from Site 10 and located on the east side of the Cape 
Fear River (Figure 10) Site 11 is the final OCS support base site under 
consideration at this time. It contains approximately 50 acres of high 
ground that would have to be provided with about two miles of access road to 
reach N.C. 133 and about three miles of rail spur to connect with Seaboard 
Coast Line Railroad (SCLRR) tracks. It is also two miles further upstream 
from the existing dredged channel and turning basin. 

2.7 Site Recommendations 

Sixteen prospective site locations were listed in Table 5 and briefly 
described in the preceding section of this chapter. Following field inspec- 
tion, each of the sites was reviewed to ascertain its compliance with the 
checklist of industry needs shown in Table 6. Specific port and marine 
infrastructure requirements (Table 4) needed to establish temporary OCS 
service bases along the North Carolina coast were used as guidelines in this 
process. It should be noted that four of the 16 sites under consideration 
(C-5, C-8, C-13, and C-17) will also be evaluated in Chapter 3 as potential 
coal terminal locations. 

Table 7 utilizes 16 measures of merit in an updated parametric analysis 
of the support base sites. A preliminary analysis was presented in Table 3- 
4 of the Phase I report, but that analysis has been modified with respect to 
sites and merit measures to reflect the most current information available 
in April 1981. 

If all of the merit measures were equally weighted, a simple summation 
would reveal the best of the candidate sites. But this is obviously not the 
case, and engineering judgment is needed to narrow the list of candidates. 
Clearly the two outstanding sites in Table 7 are Sites 17 and 23. Because 
of their location on an existing SPA terminal at Wilmington and Morehead 
City respectively, each is in the enviable position of having most of the 
necessary port and marine service infrastructure requirements already 
provided. Having relatively little demand for capital expenditures and the 
ability to begin operation almost immediately will make each of these sites 
especially attractive to the oil and gas drilling companies. Each has at 
least 1,000 feet of wharf and 35 feet of channel depth available at the 
site. Each is in a port area previously zoned for industrial use; good rail 
and highway facilities are available; and storage areas, cranes, fresh 



26 




FIGURE 10 
OCS SITES 10 & 11 



27 



u 

c 



in 



ro »- CM n 



CM >? 
CO 



CO n 



CM CO CM t- 
r- CO 



CO CM CM 



CO 
CM 



CM 
CM 



LD 
CO 



CM CM '- CO 



CO »- «- CM 



CO CO CM CM CO 



CO CO CD >- 



O 



T- CM 
CO 



T- CM 
CD 
OO — 

in 



T- CM 

CO 



^ CM 

CD 






< 
m 

H- 

oc 
o 

o. 

D. 

D 
w 

CO 

o 

O 
u. 
O 
w 

GO 

>- 
_l 
< 

< 

Ul 

_l 

CQ 
< 

I- 



o 

a 

3 
O 
CO 



T- T- CM CM 



CM CM I- CM 



00 CM 
CO 



CX3 CM 
CO 



CM I CM CD 

— CO 

CD t- 

CnI — 



CM 



CM to 
CO 



CM 



t- r- ^ CM 



T- CN CM CM 



CM CM CM CM 



CO <- «- CO 



CM »- T- CO 



»- T- CO CM 



T- CO CM CO 



00 t- 
CO 



CO .- CO in CM 



.- CO in 



r- CM CD >- 



CM CO T- 



T- CM CM 



T- CM CM 



CO CO CO 



t- 00 
CO 



CM CO 



CO in 

in 



CO CO 

CD 



CO o 

CD 



CO in 
in 



O _ 

CM f^ CO O 

r; in 



CO ■^ 



CO ■<«■ 



CO o 
in 



CO in 
in 



CM CO 



CO 


§■ 


TI 


< 






Q. 


C 


._ 


o 


<J 


O 




CO 


o 


< 


H 


_l 


DC 


< 









f, 






m 




o 












CO 

c 

a 
O 


2 

g 

x 

o 


c 
c 
to 


Q. 

Q 

"oj 

c 
c 

(O 


■I-' 
a> 

M— 


< 

i 


+-• 
c 
(i> 

E 
c 

2 

> 

cr 


> 

|> 

'cn 

C 

(/I 


CD 
O 

O 

o 

0) 


CO 

15 

CJ 

o 

i 


O) 

c 

£ 
o 


cu 

> 
en 
k- 
to 

c 

LLI 


O 

<u 
o 

c 

CD 
00 


CD 

CD 

< 
CD 




Q. 




O 




ir 


LU 




< 




o 




Q 





— — .t: ^ .t: .- CD 



> •- 



0) (U 



, o 

.t D. 

X .'=. 

2 < 



£ S 

2 < 



15 



0) 

a. 



28 



water, and bunkering facilities are already provided. With the possible 
exception of Site 22 which has been earmarked as an $18 million bulk phosphate 
facility for the North Carolina Phosphate Company,^ all other sites in Table 
7 would require substantial investments of time and capital to acquire the 
necessary infrastructure. 

Although there is little to choose between the two sites, it is recom- 
mended that Site 23 be given top priority as a support base site because of 
its proximity to the Northern Tract Group in Lease Area No. 56. Both its 
air and water distances to the lease area are approximately half of those 
for Site 17, and Site 23 is much closer to the open ocean. It is further 
recommended that, if exploratory drilling for OCS oil and gas is undertaken 
in 1981 or soon thereafter, the State of North Carolina, through its appro- 
priate agencies, should take the steps necessary to make five to ten acres 
of land at Site 23 on the SPA terminal property in Morehead City available 
for use as a temporary onshore support base site. If a second support base 
is needed, steps should also be taken to make a similar amount of land 
available on the SPA terminal in Wilmington at or near Site 17. 

2.8 Needed Improvements 

If Sites 23 and 17 are selected, little in the way of transportation 
and other improvements will be required to make either of the sites viable 
support bases. As previously stated, most of the required infrastructure is 
already in place, but minor changes in access roads, rail spurs, utility and 
communication lines, waste treatment facilities, etc., may be needed to 
serve the expected crew and supply boats and helicopters. Detailed engineer- 
ing plans for the support bases have not been prepared at this phase of the 
study, and no cost estimates have been developed. It does appear, however, 
that no additional publicly financed transportation facilities will be 
needed to serve either of these sites. 



611 



Carolina Cargo," January 1981, p. 24. 



29 



3.0 LOCATION ALTERNATIVES FOR COAL 
EXPORT TERMINALS 



3.1 Export Demand 

World demand for United States steam coal has mushroomed since late 
1979. Seaborne coal exports increased from 45 million tons in 1979 to 67 
million tons in 1980, resulting in a backup of ships waiting to load at 
major U.S. coal ports. Especially at east coast coal facilities in Hampton 
Roads and Baltimore, vessel delays have become a way of life. Average 
demurrage in March 1981 was quoted at $15,000 per day per ship.'^ Thus, a 
collier loading 75,000 long tons, waiting 40 days, and paying $15,000 per 
day in demurrage charges (total = $600,000) would add an $8 charge to each 
long ton of coal delivered. It is not surprising that a major Japanese coal 
user (Nippon Steel) recently announced that its demurrage bills for 1980 
exceeded $40 million.* 

Unfortunately, coal export terminals along the east coast of the U.S. 
are not only inadequate in terms of throughput capacity but also in terms of 
adequate channel depths. Vessel draft restrictions, created by channel 
depths of less than 45 feet, generally limit bulk carriers to Panamax-sized 
vessels (ships that can be accommodated fully loaded in the Panama Canal) of 
approximately 70,000 deadweight tons (dwt). These size restrictions add 
additional dollars to the delivered price per ton when compared with economy 
of scale advantages accruing to competitive colliers in the 120,000 to 

150.000 dwt class that can be accommodated at deeper ports. 

3.1.1 Production and Export Projections 

In an effort to determine the coal export potential for the South 
Atlantic range of ports, projections of coal demand will be reviewed against 
a background of U.S. coal reserves and production capacity. 

Recent projections indicate that if U.S. coal production continues the 
5% compounded annual growth rate it has experienced since 1973, production 
by year 2000 should approach 2.2 billion tons annually.^ This production 
level would more than satisfy a 1.1 billion ton domestic demand for steam 
and metallurgical coal and a 350 million ton export demand. With actual 



''R. Peckham, "United States Coal Ports--Time for a New Beginning," 
International Bulk Journal , April 1981. 

sibid. 

^R. L. Major, "U.S. Coal Reserves and Production Capabilities," paper 
presented at AAPA Conference on Coal and Ports, Mobile, Ala., February 17, 1981. 



31 



U.S. production in 1980 at 830 million tons, most observers foresee little 
restriction in supply potential although concern has been expressed over 
U.S. supply stability during periods of labor negotiations. 

A range of recently published production and export projections are 
summarized in Table 8. These have been extracted from the following major 
studies: 

1. C. L. Wilson, Coal Bridge to the Future , Report of the World Coal 
Study (WOCOL), 1980. 

2. "Interagency Coal Export Task Force Report on Ports and Ocean 
Transportation" (ICE), December 1980. 

3. Forecasts by Economic Committee of the National Coal Association 
(NCA), 1980. 

4. "The United States in the World Coal Market," distributed by Coal 
Exporters Association, 1979. 

Despite the variability in those projections, it is readily apparent that 
coal exports, especially steam coal, will rise dramatically in the years 
ahead. 

3.1.2 Export Constraints 

Production projections in Table 8 indicate that the United States could 
become the world's leading coal producer since it is unlikely that supply 
will be a future problem. Other factors, such as delivered cost and the 
impact of federal policy towards exports and market competition, could 
develop into major constraints. Delivered cost can be enhanced by the 
elimination of demurrage and the accommodation of larger vessels. Federal 
policy is more elusive, but certainly the posture of U.S. coal exports will 
be dependent in large measure on governments' response to two sensitive 
issues: channel dredging and the need to streamline environmental permitting. 

3. 2 Alternative Development Scenarios for North Carolina Ports 

Detailed estimates of total U.S. coal export terminal capacity, which 
were compiled by the Interagency Coal Task Force, were presented in Chapter 
1. Expected increases in terminal capacity on the East Coast that are 
either planned or underway will be reviewed before alternative development 
scenarios for the North Carolina ports are determined. 

3.2.1 Terminal Developments--U.S. East Coast 

Planned coal port expansion on the east coast is a dynamic process and 
much of the information related to these plans is necessarily proprietary. 
Significant uncertainties concerning timing, capital expenditures, and land 
acquisition make any compilation of future terminal capacity a risky endeavor; 
however, some attempt to determine present terminal commitments, especially 



32 



TABLE 8. COAL PRODUCTION AND EXPORT PROJECTIONS 



Year 



Exports (million tons annually) 



Production (million tons annually) 



Metallurgical 



Steam 



Total 



1980 
1985 
1990 
2000 



830 

971-1118(5) 

1223-1620(4) 

1905-3077 (4) 



55.2 (avg.of 9) 
62.4 (avg. of 9) 
74.4 (avg. of 4) 



90 
39.1 (avg.of 12) 94.3 

68.8 (avg. of 12) 131.3 

173.2 (avg. of 7) 247.6 



Sources: WOCOL, ICE, NCA, and "International Bulk Journal" 
Note: Number of forecasts are in parentheses. 



33 



in competing east coast ports, is essential to the development of export 
capacity scenarios for Wilmington and Morehead City. 

According to a review of east coast coal ports, the 1980 annual capacity 
was 51 million tons for Hampton Roads, 14 million tons for Philadelphia, and 
25 million tons for New York. But expansion of existing ports is underway, 
and new terminals are planned along the entire coast. As illustrated in 
Table 9, specific plans for new coal terminals along the east coast are well 
developed and, if only a portion of them become a reality, the impact on 
local area economies and life styles may be substantial. 

3.2.2 Potential for New Ports 

Bulk handling experience has shown that optimum effective capacity of 
a coal export terminal is about 65% of its maximum capacity. ^° Above this 
level, vessel waiting time increases and congestion occurs. This is the 
present situation at Hampton Roads where loading facilities have been operating 
at about 90% of capacity. Part of the problem at Hampton Roads is that the 
loading system was designed to meet the multi-grade standards of the metal- 
lurgical coal trade where the required blends of coal are transferred from 
rail cars directly to the loading vessel. Practically all of the new coal 
terminals will be designed to handle steam coal, which only requires ground 
storage and permits much faster rail car turnaround. 

It might be inferred from Table 9 that the east coast is rapidly moving 
from an undercapacity condition in 1980 to one of overcapacity by the late 
1980' s. Indeed, if all proposals were implemented, this could be a risk. 
But coal port developments are a function of opportunity and market timing, 
and many of the new terminal facilities are being implemented only after 
firm, long-term contracts with importers have been signed. 

3.2.3 Vessel Requirements 

Channel depths of 38 feet in the Cape Fear River and 40 feet in the 
Morehead City harbor somewhat restrict the size of ships that presently 
utilize North Carolina's two deepwater ports. This same criticism can be 
leveled at most U.S. ports where restricted channels limit the draft and 
therefore the deadweight capacity of entering vessels. Although the United 
States has the greatest number of coal export terminals, most are restricted 
to ships of the 50,000 to 70,000 dwt (Panamax) size. Few major coal-loading 
facilities for ships of 100,000 dwt and over exist anywhere in the world, 
and these are located in Western Canada, Australia, and South Africa. Most 
of the discharging terminals accessible to these bulk carriers over 100,000 
dwt are concentrated in Western Europe and Japan. The share of these large 
vessels in world coal trade is steadily increasing (from 21% in 1980 to a 



^*^J. Bowersmith, "Overview of U.S. Coal Port Capabilities and Deficiencies," 
Proceedings, AAPA Coal and Ports Seminar, February 17-19, 1981. 



34 



TABLE 9. CAPACITIES OF PLANNED COAL TERMINALS-U.S. EAST COAST 



Terminal 



Existing Throughput 
(million tons annually) 



Planned Throughput 
(million tons annually) 



New York-New Jersey 

• Jersey City 

• Stapelton, Staten Island 

• Port Reading 

Port Camden 

• Alla-Ohio Valley 

Philadelphia 

• Greenwich 

• Pier 124 

• Port Richmond 

• Northern Shipping Co. 

Baltimore 

• Marley Neck (SOROS) 

• Curtis Bay (Ky-Ohio Transp. Co.) 

• Canton Marine Terminal (Consol.) 

• Hawkins Point 

Hampton Roads 

• Newport News (Chessie) 

• Lamberts Point (N & W) 

• Newport News (A.T. Massey) 

• Newport News (Utah Int., etal.) 

• Craney Island (VPA) 

Morehead City 

• SPA (Alla-Ohio Valley) 

• Radio Island (Gulf Interstate) 

Wilmington 

• American Coal Export 

• Utah International 

• SPA 

Charleston 

• A.T. Massey 

Savannah 

• Elk River Resources-SCL 

Brunswick 

• Colonel's Island (SOROS) 



0.25 



3.5 



14 



27 
34 



3-7 



10 
1-5 

15-35 
12 

10-20 
10 



12 
15 
20 

3-12 
15-20 



6 
5 



8-12 



12-15 



Sources: 
"Marine Engineering/Lot," March 1981. 
"Journal of Commerce," February 17, 1981. 

W. White, Remarks summarizing "Atlantic Coast Port Potential" at Coal and Ports Conference, Mobile, Ala. 
February 18, 1981. 



35 



projected 36% in 1990 and 43% in 2000), ^^ and herein lies a basic problem 
for those concerned with coal terminal location. As vessel sizes increase, 
a large percentage of the bulk carriers loading in U.S. ports cannot be 
fully loaded. The maritime industry will be faced with either partially 
loading the larger vessels and "topping" them off at deeper ports, dredging 
deeper channels, or building new deepwater terminals offshore. 

This is the dilemma faced by North Carolina's ports, and its resolution 
to a large degree will control the number and location of future coal term- 
inals. Since several companies have already made commitments to export 
steam coal from Wilmington and Morehead City, it is apparent that they have 
opted, at least temporarily, to utilize smaller ships. The possibility of 
constructing a terminal with a submarine pipeline to deliver coal in slurry 
form to larger vessels at an offshore loading buoy is also being explored. 

3.2.4 Export Scenarios 

It is evidence from Table 9 that traditional eastern coal ports-- 
Hampton Roads, Baltimore, and Philadephia--have plans to expand existing 
facilities and build new terminals. It is also evident that coal shippers 
are turning to ports that have exported little or no coal in the past (e.g.. 
New York, Morehead City, Wilmington, Charleston, Savannah, and Brunswick) as 
potential locations for new terminals. Although it is beyond the scope of 
this study, it should be noted that similar plans for increasing export 
capacity are underway on the Gulf, Pacific, and Great Lakes coasts. Develop- 
ments at the ports of Mobile, New Orleans, Galveston, and Long Beach in 
particular suggest that the problem of increased export capacity is not 
unique to the east coast or to Appalachian coal. As world demand expands, 
growing amounts of western coal --especially from the Powder River Basin-- 
will be produced and most likely exported from noneast coast ports. In the 
meantime, because of a well developed rail infrastructure for handling 
Appalchian coal, additional port capacity will be required along the Atlantic 
Coast. 

Since June 1980, numerous coal shippers, railroad officials, and consul- 
tants have explored the possibility of exporting coal from one or both of 
North Carolina's deepwater ports. Firm commitments or announced plans to 
locate in North Carolina have been reported by the news media for the loca- 
tions shown in Table 10. 

In addition to these five sites, an official of Wheel abrator-Frye 
Company announced at a recent coal conference that his firm is considering 
Alabama and/or North Carolina sites for a future coal slurry export terminal 
with offshore loading facilities to handle 12 to 15 million tons per year.^^ 
If all of these plans materialize and no additional site selections are 
announced, it appears that as much as 54 to 67 million tons of coal could be 
exported from the state when all terminals are onstream. It should be 



^^"Interagency Coal Export Task Force Report on Ports and Ocean Trans- 
portation," December 1980. 

^^W. McDonough, "A Slurry Export Terminal Concept," paper presented at 
AAPA Coal and Ports Conference, Mobile, Alabama, February 18, 1981. 



36 



TABLE 10. PLANNED COAL TERMINALS - NORTH CAROLINA 



Startup 
Date 



Terminal Site (Company) 



Initial Ultimate 

Capacity Capacity 

(mta) (mta) 



Morehead City 

April 1981 1 . State Ports Authority Terminal (Alla-Ohio Valley 

Coal Co.)^ 

April 1984 2. Radio Island (Gulf Interstate, Inc.)*^ 



3.0 

15.0 



10-12 
15-20 



Wilmington 
April 1982 3. Northeast Cape Fear River (American Coal Export Co. I*^ 

4. Pleasant Oaks Plantation Brunswick Co. (Utah 
International) 

5. State Ports Authority Terminal (no contract announced) 



1.5 



6 

5 
6-9 



Estimates announced by "Journal of Commerce," February 17, 1981. 

Estimates announced by "Journal of Commerce," April 3, 1981 and "Engineering New Record," 
March 12, 1981. 

''Estimates announced by "Wilmington Morning Star," February 25, 1981 and February 28, 1981. 

Estimates announced by "Wilmington Morning Star," March 12, 1981 and March 21, 1981. 

® Estimates announced by "Wilmington Morning Star," January 20, 1981. 



37 



noted that 54 to 67 million tons represent a maximum capacity and the 
effective capacity would probably be about 65 percent of this total. 

A summary of these estimates arranged in logical time frames has been 
assembled in Table 11. Obviously, delays in environmental permitting, 
financing, or construction of one or more of the projects could significantly 
reduce these estimates, and the totals for the decade probably represent an 
optimistic scenario of coal exports. 

3. 3 Long-Range Needs 

As of May 1981, only the three sites identified in Table 10 with fixed 
startup dates have announced specific intentions to begin exporting coal. 
Al la-Ohio Valley Coal Company loaded its first vessel in early May 1981, 
while American Coal Export Company and Gulf Interstate, Inc. expect to be 
operational in 1982 and 1984 respectively. Detailed plans for the other 
firms in Table 10, plus any plans of companies yet to make public announce- 
ments, suggest the need for a delineation of long-range needs in terms of 
land, port facilities, channel depths, utilities, transportation links, 
easements, and other peripheral facilities. 

In the Phase I Report, a throughput of 6 to 10 million tons of coal 
annually was assumed for the prospective terminal (s) in Morehead City and a 
similar amount for the Wilmington terminal(s). In light of more recent 
data, these estimates will have to be increased and the infrastructure 
requirements modified. Table 12 presents recommended long-range requirements 
for coal export terminals. 

3.4 North Carolina Sites 

Prospective coal terminal sites listed in Table 13 are numbered so as 
to provide consistency with the OCS support base sites listed in Table 5. 
Four of the sites (C-5, C-8, C-13, and C-17), which were identified both as 
potential support base and coal terminal sites, have already been described 
in Chapter 2. The remaining 7 coal terminal sites will be described in the 
following paragraphs. 

3.4.1 Morehead City (Figure 11) 

Site C-12: Gulf Interstate Engineering Company Site on Radio Island : 
The Phase I Report indicated that Gulf Interstate Engineering Company had 
announced plans for a liquified petroleum gas terminal on this site in 1978. 
However, in February 1981, the Houston-based company made public plans to 
construct a $60 to 70 million coal export facility on Site C-12. The company 
intends to develop a privately-owned 74-acre parcel (Figure 12) on Radio 
Island with storage and loading facilities capable of handling 15 to 20 
million tons of coal annually. A T-head loading pier would be constructed 
on the west side of the site parallel to the 40-foot ship channel. Excellent 
rail and good highway access is available on Radio Island. Following the 
issuance of environmental permits, construction would take 18 to 24 months 
with the first coal shipment expected in 1984. 



38 



TABLE 11. COAL EXPORT CAPACITY ESTIMATES 
(million tons annually). 





Morehead City Sites 




Wllm 


ngton S 


ites 










Gulf 


American 


Utah 




SPA 






Date 


Alla-Ohio 


interstate 


Coal 


International 


Terminal 


Offshore 


Total 


1981 


1.5 


— 


— 


_ 







_ 


1.5 


1982 


3.0 


— 


1.5 


5 




3 


- 


7.5 


1983 


3.0 


— 


1.5 


5 




6 


6 


21.5 


1984 


6.0 


15 


6.0 


5 




6 


12 


45.5 


1985 


7.0 


15 


6.0 


5 




6 


12 


51.0 


1986 


8.0 


15 


6.0 


5 




7 


12 


53.0 


1987 


9.0 


15 


6.0 


5 




8 


12 


55.0 


1988 


10.0 


15 


6.0 


5 




g 


13 


58.0 


1989 


11.0 


20 


6.0 


5 




9 


14 


65.0 


1990 


12.0 


20 


6.0 


5 




9 


15 


67.0 



39 



TABLE 12. PORT AND MARINE SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS 

FOR COAL EXPORT TERMINALS 



1. Land 

2. Wharf length 

3. Channel depth 

4. Turning basin 

5. Reclaiming and loading capacity 

6. Rail facilities 

7. Vehicular traffic 

8. Drainage 

9. IMoise levels 

10. Coal dust suppression 



100 to 200 acres of relatively flat land for ground storage 
of steam coal. 

1,000 linear feet per berth. 

38-40 feet. 

Accommodate vessels up to 60,000 dwt. 

6,000 net tons per hour. 

Accommodate 100-car unit trains dumping 10,000 tons 
each Into hopper. Coal can be conveyed either to stockpile 
or directly to shiploader. 

Internal roads should be paved, curbed, and guttered to 
facilitate routine cleaning and dust suppression. 

Settling ponds sized to accept runoff from entire site. 

Maximum allowable noise emissions should assure that 
combined operational noise will not be a nuisance to near- 
by residents. 

System to suppress coal dust at transfer points, including 
enclosed conveyors and equipment for washdown. 



Site 



TABLE 13. PROSPECTIVE COAL TERMINAL SITES 



Location 



Acreage 



Morehead City 

C-13 
C-16 
C-12 
C-19 
C-14 

South port 
C-05 



Marsh Island 

Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Co. site in existing SPA terminal 

Gulf Interstate Engineering Co. Site on Radio Island 

Brant Island 

Near junction of US 70 and NC 24 



North of Pfizer Chemical Co. 



50 

5 

74 

50 

200 



350 



Wilmington 

C-07 
C-17 
C-18 
C-20 

C-08 



Utah International Site— South of Sand Hill Creek 

North end of existing SPA terminal 

Hampstead/Scotts Hill 

American Coal Export Co. site on Northeast 

Cape Fear River 

North of Town Creek 



350 

58 

100 

85 
250 



40 



o 








o 








TI 








II 


(M 






- 


O 






o 


Ul 


C\J 


CM 


re 


1- 


1 — 


1 — 


o 
CO 


(/) 


UJ 


C_> 




'/A 




LxJ 

1— H 



oo 




42 



Site C-16: AHa-Qhio Valley Coal Company Site in Existing SPA Terminal -- 
In late 1980, Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company (AOV) of Washington, D.C. announced 
plans for construction of a $3 million coal handling facility on land owned 
by the State Ports Authority. A sketch of the stacker, reclaimer, conveyor, 
and coal storage area that comprises the AOV facility on Site C-16 is shown 
in Figure 13. A four--track addition to the existing rail lines permits the 
storage and dumping of rail cars at the terminal. Coal is stored on the 
ground, reclaimed, and transferred to the existing phosphate conveyor system 
for loading aboard ship. The existing ship berth on the east side of the 
SPA terminal will accommodate bulk carriers up to about 50,000 dwt. This 
berth and the existing conveyor belt will be shared with vessels loading 
phosphate for export. 

Initially, the AOV terminal will have an annual throughput capacity of 
three million tons, but the company hopes eventually to increase this level 
to 10 to 12 million tons. In order to achieve this magnitude of expansion, 
additional storage area and a new rail line bypassing Morehead City will 
probably be needed. Because of limited open area at the existing SPA terminal, 
any expansion of the AOV facility from 3 to 10 million tons throughput will 
almost certainly have to be provided for elsewhere--perhaps on 38 acres of 
SPA-owned land on Radio Island. The possibility of a new rail line or 
alternative facility (slurry pipeline, conveyor belt, etc.) to relieve the 
present track located in the median of the main street of Morehead City is 
being addressed in a study performed by SOROS and Associates for Alla-Ohio 
Valley, the Southern Railroad, and the SPA. 

Site C-19: Brant Island --A low- level site within the Morehead City 
Harbor known as Brant Island is revealed in Figure 11. The island is presently 
uninhabited, has no highway or rail access, and is bounded on the south by 
Fort Macon State Park. Although it is conveniently located with respect to 
the deepwater channel, major environmental problems would have to be overcome, 
and it probably should be viewed only as a potential site for the long term 
future. 

Site C-14: Near Junction of U.S. 70 and N.C. 24 --This site was identified 
in the Phase I Report as a 200-acre parcel of land just west of Morehead 
City and adjacent to the A&ECRR (Southern) at the junction of U.S. 70 and 
N.C. 24 (Figure 14). It would eliminate the movement of coal trains through 
the city but would require an offshore loading facility for large bulk 
carriers. It is identified here as a prospective site for ground storage of 
steam coal, but in order to be a viable undertaking, would require a slurry 
pipeline or similar technology to connect the storage area with the offshore 
loading facility. Excellent rail and highway access is available at the 
site. 

3.4.2 Wilmington 

Site C-7: Utah International Site South of Sand Hill Creek --Utah 
International, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Electric Company, 
confirmed in March 1981, that it holds an 18-month renewable option to buy 
a 350-acre tract of land on the west bank of the Cape Fear River, where it 



43 




SCALE: I =400 



FIGURE 13 
SITE C-16 



44 




I ..x^»i^ 




Export coal bound for Western Europe began flowing out of 
North Carolina in May 1981. After moving through the State 
by unit train (above) Appalachian coal is loaded aboard the 
"S.S. CHIHAYA" (below) at the Alla-Ohio Valley Coal Company 
facility in Morehead City. 




45 




"^ "^ 






CD 



I 

o 



46 



hopes to build a coal export terminal. This location was previously identified 
in the Phase I Report and is depicted in greater detail in Figure 15. 

The site is part of a larger 3,000 to 4,000 acre tract known as Pleasant 
Oaks Plantation. Entrance to the plantation is at the junction of N.C. 133 
and S.R. 1518, roughly one-half mile south of Town Creek. The property is 
within a riverfront corridor largely zoned for industrial use in the Brunswick 
County Land Use Plan. Much of the tract is on high ground, but substantial 
wetlands are also present. 

Besides the Brunswick County site, the company is also considering 
sites in Baltimore and Newport News. If Site C-7 is selected for development 
by Utah International, the company would ship coal from their mines in 
Kentucky and West Virginia via the Seaboard Coastline Railroad system to the 
export terminal. This presumably would require federal approval for the use 
of the rail spur leading to the Military Ocean Terminal at Sunny Point. 

The company anticipates exporting at least five million tons of coal a 
year through whichever site is chosen. 

Site C-20: American Coal Export Company Site on Northeast Cape Fear 
River — Preliminary plans for a coal exporting facility on an 85-acre tract 
on the Northeast Cape Fear River were submitted to government regulatory 
agencies in February 1981. American Coal Export Company plans to develop a 
$20 to $25 million facility at Site C-20, which is bounded by U.S. 421 and 
the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks (Figure 16). The site is zoned for 
heavy industry, and the company's option to purchase is good until August 
15, 1981. The company hopes to begin exporting 1.5 million tons of coal to 
Europe by early 1982. With completion of a second phase in 1983, the facility 
will be exporting about 6 million tons annually. 

The site has several obvious advantages with respect to location and 
transportation access. Excellent highway access is available from U.S. 421 
which has a five-lane cross section. The main rail line linking Wilmington 
with the Seaboard yards at Navassa runs along the south side of Site C-20 
and under U.S. 421. Thus, unit coal trains would not have to pass through 
Wilmington to reach the site. The major limitations of the site relate to 
constraints imposed upon shipping. The ship channel opposite the site is 
presently only 22 feet deep, the turning basin is almost a mile north of the 
site, and any ships loading at the site will have to pass through the 
restrictive Hilton Bridge (Bascule R.R.) after a 30-mile trip up the Cape 
Fear River. Relatively shallow channel depths will severely restrict 
vessel size unless further channel dredging is approved. The channel is now 
38 feet deep upriver to the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge. From that point 
north to the turning basin (Figure 16), the project depth is 25 feet. 
Apparently, as part of an agrement with other industries upstream (W. R. 
Grace Company and Rumsey Marine and Drydock), the entire channel north of 
Cape Fear Memorial Bridge will soon be dredged to 25 feet. 

Site C-18: Hampstead/Scotts Hi 11 --With a view towards the possibility 
of an offshore coal loading facility being constructed in the future, a 



47 







FIGURE 15 
SITE C-7 



48 




Plans to construct coal export terminals are being considered 
at several locations along the Cape Fear River. American Coal 
Export Company plans to develop Site C-20 (above) above the 
Hilton RR Bridge while Utah International holds an option on 
Site C-7 (below) south of Sound Hill Creek. 




49 




FIGURE 16 
AMERICAN COAL EXPORT COMPANY SITE, C-20 



50 



tentative site north of Wilmington has been identified for further study. 
Site C-18 (Figure 17) would be located on a portion of a 2,000 acre tract of 
land on the east side of U.S. 17 between the communities of Hampstead and 
Scotts Hill. The site is on relatively high ground overlooking the Atlantic 
Intracoastal Waterway, some low lying uninhabited islands, and the ocean to 
the east. 

If utilized for a coal terminal at some future date, coal would arrive 
by unit train on a rail spur from the SCL main line and be dumped at the 
site. A submarine pipeline from the storage area would then carry the coal 
in slurry form approximately six miles out into the ocean where an offshore 
loading terminal in 60 feet of water could accommodate bulk carriers up to 
120,000 dwt. If larger vessels are contemplated, 90 feet of water is available 
about 22 miles offshore. Tradeoffs in cost of additional pipeline versus 
economy of scale provided by larger ships would have to be evaluated. 

It should be emphasized that, while no offshore coal terminals are in 
existence in the U.S. today, such a concept is receiving serious attention 
in the coal transportation community. In essence, the concept of an offshore 
coal terminal bypasses the existing bottlenecks at coal ports and results in 
new export ports without the need for conventional port infrastructure — new 
harbors, piers, ground transport, and expensive waterfront property. It can 
be implemented quickly, it may be more environmentally acceptable, it can 
accommodate larger ships and provide a lower ocean transport cost, and it 
can be readily expanded to meet growing demand. In the case of Site C-18, 
it offers the additional advantage of probable public acceptance in that 
both the coal storage area and the offshore loading facility could be designed 
and located so they would not be visible from or impact on inhabited areas. 

Site C-17: North End of Existing SPA Terminal --Although a description 
of Site C-17 in terms of a prospective OCS support base site was provided in 
Chapter 2, some additional remarks relative to its potential as a coal 
terminal are in order. An indicated in Figures 18 and 19, a two-phase 
project is envisioned that would utilize a portion of the north end of the 
SPA terminal (Figure 20) to construct a coal export terminal. 

Phase I (Figure 18) would include the development of a 6-acre tract 
east of Warehouse No. 3 to construct several 15,000 ton silos for storing 
coal. Coal would arrive by unit train on the SCL tracks, be stored in the 
silos, and then transferred by conveyor belt to Berth B for vessel loading. 
Annual throughput capacity of Phase I is expected to be about three million 
tons. 

Phase II would encompass plans for a 52-acre undeveloped area shown in 
Figure 19. Coal would arrive in the existing rail yard and be stored on 
the ground in 80,000 ton stockpiles. Initially, this coal would move south 
by conveyor belt to Berth B for shiploading. After a new loading pier, 
which could accommodate 55,000 dwt vessels, is constructed alongside the 
Phase II storage area (Berth C), the conveyor system would permit simultaneous 
loading of two ships. 



51 




FIGURE 17 
HAMPSTEAD/SCOTTS HILL—SITE C-18 



52 



cV^-^sJ 







.«.'-'' 






^ ~ — .- ---<- -■ 



-VuTuRE SiLOii' 






""^^tr I5.0O0T0N CAP 

^^^u ^^ ^ SILOS 



S^Vi^iQ 



J««Cf '^f ^'•^^''^ 



r^.^"*^ 



tar 



REmOUSE No 5 



Pi 



WAREHOUSE M6 1 



TRANSIT SHED NO.I 






TRANSIT SHED No 2 



D Dagg } 



^^ 



CAPE 



FEAR 



RIVER 



SCALE IN FeCT 
200 400 



FIGURE 18 
SITE C-17 PHASE I 



53 



II 

tl 



ll 
.J > 







1 1 

I I 
\ I 

' V _- 

"-> ^> r"" 

1 



iOlzz 



rmoir _JZ^V. 



LITTU Lt^eUE BASeBALL PARK 



\ 



V r. 



\ \ 



ll 



% v.// 



w 



"^-.~ ■ ^! 




^^^Sp/^ 



^^AD 



hER 



SCALE IN rtCT 
K)0 400 



FIGURE 19 
SITE C-17 PHASE II 



54 



Total capacity of the entire project is estimated at nine to twelve 
million tons annually. Actual implementation of this project will depend 
upon negotiations with prospective coal shippers, since a firm contract does 
not presently exist. Many inherent advantages can be credit to this site as 
a potential coal export terminal--the SPA already owns the land, Berth B and 
the necessary rail facilities are in place, and of course, the SPA terminal 
is presently zoned and in use as an industrial entity. Offsetting these 
advantages is the need to move the unit coal trains through the city of 
Wilmington where numerous grade crossings are encountered. 

3. 5 Improvements Needed 

Eleven prospective coal terminal sites were listed in Table 13 and 
described in Chapter 2 or in the preceding section of this chapter. After 
field inspection, each of the sites was evaluated to determine compliance 
with the infrastructure requirements listed in Table 12. As in the case of 
OCS support base sites, an updated parametric analysis for coal terminals 
was performed; and the results are summarized in Table 14. 

Analysis of the coal sites is complicated by the fact that several of 
the sites, regardless of whether or not they are the best sites, have 
already been selected by coal companies as export terminal sites. As a 
result. Sites C-12 and C-16 in Morehead City and C-7 and C-20 in Wilmington 
have been pre-empted for coal terminals in the past six months. In fact, 
most of the better sites have either been purchased or are presently under 
option. 

With these constraints in evidence and considering the findings revealed 
in this chapter, the following tentative recommendations are proposed: 

Morehead City Sites 

1. That because the planned throughput of the Al la-Ohio Valley 
(C-16) and Gulf Interstate (C-12) terminals, which may total up to 32 
million tons annually by 1990, will far exceed the practical capacity 
of the railroad line through Morehead City, future expansion of these 
terminals should be very carefully evaluated. 

2. That no additional coal terminals be approved in the Morehead 
City Harbor until major changes are implemented in the land transportation 
link for coal inbound to the port. These changes could include a rail 
bypass, slurry pipeline, conveyor system, barge service, or some combi- 
nation of systems. 

Cape Fear River Sites 

3. That, other than a moderate-sized coal terminal on SPA property 
(C-17), no additional coal terminals should be sited on the east side 

of the Cape Fear River because of railroad grade crossing problems 
in Wilmington. 



56 



LU 



< 



cc 

LU 



< 

o 
o 

u. 
O 
W 
CO 

> 
-I 

< 

< 

LU 

-I 

m 
< 







c 






fl] 




o 


•a -5 

S o 




6 


E" 

< 

■o 
re 

0) 




00 


♦^ 




r^ 


(A 

Q. 




o 


E 


c 




re 


o 




I 


TO 






c 












E 




re 




1^ 


< •- 


i 


T 


0- £ 




O 


to £ 

c -^ 




«9 


5 (U 




o 


O 1^ 
F O 




i> 


re *' 




CJ 


S^ 



CN ^ .- n 



ro <- .- T- 



CN »- <- CN 



t 

o 
a 



o 

CO 



u 

■a 



0) 

O 



o ^ 

oS: 



re re 



<o 





^ 




CM 


o 


o 


(/> 


z 


D 


•D 




C 




re 


£ 


T3 




c 


re 


CA 



"-CMCNCNror-cNn^-rocM 



CNCNnncNCNCocNro 



T- CM CN r- n 



CM CM «- fM CM 



CN CM CO 



»- n CO ^ ^ n 



»- «- CM 



c 



'-'-r-COCOCO^r-,- 



CM^-OOCMCOCOOOCO 



CM >- T- n 



■B o 







■^ 


c 






tn 


(rt 


_l 












i 


c 






C 
00 


± 


> 














^ 




crt 
















c 
a; 


O 

o 


Q. 


O 

> 


lu 


o 

"cD 


cu 

c 

LU 


> 








tA 

o 


O 

2 




0) 
Q 


c 

£ 


O 

o 


c 


15 
re 




■a 
o 
o 


3 

■a 

c 

n3 

_l 


< 

■Jo 

tr 


Vi 

O 


£ 

X 

2 

Q. 


c 
c 

CD 

O 


03 

g 

O) 

± 


C 

o 

'> 
c 

LU 


o 

u 

< 


Q. 

E 
o 

CJ 


'e 

CL 


■a 

c 
cu 
ro 

<u 
_l 


O 

1 



.!= O 

re o 

U- Q. 

I I 



57 



4. That, if additional throughput capacity is required along the 
Cape Fear River, Site C-5 (north of Pfizer Chemical Company) and Site 
C-8 (north of Town Creek) should be considered as the best of the 
remaining available sites. 

Offshore Sites 

5. That, if any coal companies desire to develop an offshore 
export terminal comp''ex to load coal in deep water (>60 feet). Site C-18 
(Hampstead/Scotts Hill) and possibly Site C-14 (near U.S. 70 and 

N.C. 24 west of Morehead City) should be initially considered. 

3.6 Summary 

Utilizing U.S. coal production and export projections from a series of 
recent national studies, estimates of East Coast coal terminal capacity were 
prepared. Export potential for the South Atlantic range of ports, with 
particular emphasis on North Carolina's two deepwater ports, was then 
explored. 

Firm commitments or announced plans to locate coal terminals in the 
State have been reported in the news media for five locations. If all of 
these plans materialize and if the announced tonnages are realistic, as much 
as 54 to 67 million tons of coal could be exported from North Carolina by 
the end of the decade. 

Finally, eleven prospective sites in the Coastal Study Area were described 
and analyzed to ascertain their suitability as future locations for coal 
export terminals. Specific recommendations for sites in Morehead City, 
along the Cape Fear River, and offshore were itemized. It is anticipated 
that, during Phase III of this study, alternative transportation modes or 
systems that could relieve anticipated bottlenecks in the coal-haul railroad 
network or other transportation networks will be investigated. 



58 



BIBLIOGRAPHY 

The references cited in this bibliography are classified under the 
following topics: 

North Carolina Transportation 

Ports 

North Carolina State Ports 

OCS Impacts and Oil and Gas Studies 

Coal 

North Carolina Energy Statistics 

Environmental Assessments and Studies 

Water Resources 

Land Use Plans 

Bibliographies and Data Sources 

NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION 

Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. 1976. Statewide Transportation Plan: 
Phase I Summary Report . Prepared for North Carolina Department of 
Transportation. Evanston, Illinois. 

Mulligan, Paul F. 1975. Executive Summary: Analysis of Transportation 
Services in North Carolina and Their Relationships to Economic Growth 
Management . Prepared for North Carolina Department of Administration. 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute. 

Mulligan, Paul F. 1975. Final Report: Analysis of Transportation Services 
in North Carolina and Their Relationships to Economic Growth, and Manage - 
ment . Prepared for North Carolina Department of Administration. 
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Board of Transportation. 1979. 
North Carolina's Transportation Improvement Program, 1980-1986 . Raleigh, 
North Carolina. 



59 



North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways. 1980. 
Highway and Road Mileage . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute. 
1979. North Carolina Airport System Plan: Executive Summary . Raleigh, 
North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute. 
1979. North Carolina Airport System Plan: Technical Report, Book 1 . 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of the Assitant Secretary 
for Planning, Aviation Systems, Inc., and Research Triangle Institute. 
1979. North Carolina Airport System Plan: Technical Report, Book 2 . 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Office of the Governor. 1981. "Hunt Pledges Cooperation with New Bern 

Officials." News Release of March 20, 1981. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Smith, Wilbur, & Associates. 1979. North Carolina Rail Plan: 1979 . 

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Office of 
Assistant Secretary for Planning. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Smith, Wilbur, & Associates. 1979. Report of Governor's Blue Ribbon Com- 
mission on Transportation Needs and Financing. Prepared for North 
Carolina Department of Transportation. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Stone, John R. 1981. The Impacts of Coal Movements Through North Carolina." 
Presented at the North Carolina Urban Affairs Conference. Charlotte, 
North Carolina. 

United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 
and North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1979. Proposed 
Primary Highway Extension from 1-40 Terminus (at 1-95) near Benson 
to Wilmington, Johnston, Sampson, Duplin, Pender, and New Hanover 
Counties . Administrative Action Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

PORTS ^ 

Architecture Research Center. 1972. Port and Harbor Development System: 

Phase 2-Planning Summary . Texas A&M University, College of Architecture 
and Environmental Design. College Station, Texas. 

American Association of Port Authorities. 1981. Coal and Ports Seminar . 
Proceedings of seminar. Mobile, Alabama. 

Bowersmith, J. 1981. "Overview for U.S. Coal Port Capabilities and Defi- 
ciencies." Proceedings of AAPA Coal and Ports Seminar. February 17- 
19, 1981. 



60 



Coal Age . November 1980. pp. 66-84. (Port Traffic & Development Status). 

Goodman, A. C. , and Hess, A. L. 1980. Middle Atlantic Region Port Handbook: 
Baltimore, Philadelphia, Hampton Roads . Paper prepared for the Trans- 
portation Freight Conference. Baltimore, Maryland. 

Harlow, E. H. 1975. Artificial Offshore Islands . Lecture for Department 
of Civil Engineering, State University. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Harris, Frederic R. , Inc. 1975. An Evaluation, Multi-Purpose Offshore 

Industrial-Port Islands: Civil Engineering Considerations . Prepared 
for NSF/RANN. Great Neck, New York. 

Interagency Coal Export Task Force. 1980. "Report on Ports and Ocean 

Transportation." A working paper. Maritime Administration. Washington, 
D.C. 

Mascerik, John, ed. Ports '80 . Proceedings from Specialty Conference spon- 
sored by Committee on Ports and Harbors, Waterway, Port, Coastal and 
Ocean Division of ASCE. May 1980. Norfolk, Virginia. New York: ASCE. 

McDonough, W. 1981. "A Slurry Export Terminal Concept." Presented at 
AAPA Coal and Ports Conference. Mobile, Alabama. 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Transportation for Policy and Inter- 
national Affairs. 1980. Landside Transportation at Ports: A Prelim 
inary Assessment of Transportation Connectivity Problems at United 
States Ports. Washington, D.C. 

Office of Technology Assessment, Congressional Board of the 97th Congress. 
1981. "Coal Exports and Port Development: A Technical Memorandum." 
Washington, D.C. 

Peckham, R. "United States Coal Ports-Time for a New Beginning." 1981. 
International Bulk Journal . 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1978. Waterborne Commerce of the 
United States-1977 . 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division. 1973. 
Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities: Texas, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida . Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division. 

1973. Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities: Texas, Louisiana 
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Appendix E: Transportation and 
Costs Analysis . Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Mississippi Valley Division. 
1973. Report on Gulf Coast Deepwater Port Facilities: Texas, Louisi- 
ana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Appendix F: Environmental 
Assessment; Environmental Impact . Vicksburg, Mississippi. 



61 



United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. 
Interim Report: Atlantic Coast Deepwater f^ort Facilities Study . 
Eastport, Maine to Hampton Roads, Virginia . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. Atlantic 
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton 
Roads, Virginia: Economic Analysis . Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. Atlantic 
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton 
Roads, Virginia: Economics of Tanker Size Selection . Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, Philadelphia District. 1973. Atlantic 
Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Eastport, Maine to Hampton 
Roads, Virginia: Socio-Economic Considerations . Philadelphia, Penn- 
sylvania. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific 

Divisions. 1973. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study: Summary 
Report . 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific 

Division. 1973. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study: Appendix 
C, Transportation Economics . 

United States Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific and North Pacific 

Division. 1973. West Coast Deepwater Port Facilities Study. Appendix 
E, Environmental Assessment . 

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
and National Ocean Survey. 1979. United States Coast Pilot--Atlantic 
Coast: Cape Henry to Key West . 17th Edition. Washington, D.C. 

United States General Accounting Office, Comptroller General. 1979. Report 
to the Congress of the United States: American Seaports--Change Affect- 
ing Operations and Development . 

United States Department of the Interior. 1974. Final Environmental Impact 
Statement--Deepwater Ports . 2 volumes. 

United States Department of Transportation, Office of University Research. 

1977. Federal Port Policy in the United States. Final Report . Spring- 
field, Virginia: National Technical Information Service. 

NORTH CAROLINA PORTS 

A. T. Kearney, Inc. 1980. Water Transportation Users: Element C of the 

National Waterways Study . Prepared for the Institute for Water Resources, 
Water Resources Support Center, United States Army Corps of Engineers, 
Fort Bel voir, Virginia. 



62 



Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. The Marine News - 
letter . Vol. 2, No. 2 (March-April 1980). Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. The Marine News- 
letter . Vol. 2, No. 3 (May-June 1980). Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Godwin, G. 1980. Coal Export Potential and North Carolina Ports , In-House 
Work Paper. North Carolina Ports Authority. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Lockwood-Greene Architects and Engineers. 1979. North Carolina State 
Ports Authority, Port of Wilmington: Expansion Development Study . 
Prepared for North Carolina State Ports Authority. Spartanburg, South 
Carolina. 

Mulligan, P. F. , and Collins, R. L. 1975. Executive Summary: Report of 
Impact of the North Carolina Ports on the State Economy . Prepared for 
North Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety. 

Mulligan, P. F. , and Collins, R. L. 1975. Final Report: Impact of the 

North Carolina Ports on the North Carolina Economy . Prepared for North 
Carolina Department of Transportation and Highway Safety. 

North Carolina State Department of Transportation. 1973. Report: Study 
of Plans for Development of North Carolina State Ports Authority . 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina State Ports Authority. 1980. North Carolina's Ports and 
Waterways . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Robert R. Nathan Associates, Inc., and Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. 
1975. The Coastal Plains Deepwater Terminal Study . Prepared for the 
Coastal Plains Regional Commission. Washington, D.C. 

Stover, William T. , Jr., ed. Carolina Cargo, December 1979- January 1980 . 
North Carolina State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Stover, William T. , Jr., ed. Carolina Cargo, February-March 1980 . North 
Carolina State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Stover, William T. , Jr., ed. 1981. Carolina Cargo, January 1981 . North Carolina 
State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Stover, William T., Jr., ed. 1981. Carolina Cargo, February 1981 . North 
Carolina State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Stover, William T. , Jr., ed. 1981. Carolina Cargo, March 1981 . North Carolina 
State Ports Authority. Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Water Resources Support Center. 1980. The Ports of Wilmington and Morehead 
City, North Carolina . Prepared for the United States Army Corps of 
Engineers. Washington, D.C. 



63 



PCS IMPACTS AND OIL AND GAS STUDIES 

Centaur Associates. 1976. Managing the Social & Economic Impacts of Energy 
Developments . Prepared for the United States Energy Research and 
Development Administration. Washington, D.C. 

Center for Natural Areas. 1979 A Summary and Analysis of Environmental 
Information on the Continental Shelf and Blake Plateau from Cape 
Hatteras to Cape Canaveral . United States Department of Commerce. 
Washington, D.C. 

Clark, John. 1974. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for 

Management of the Coastal Zone . The Conservation Foundation. Washington, 
D.C. 

Coastal Environments, Inc. 1976. A Process for Coastal Resource Manage- 
ment and Impact Assessment . Prepared for the Louisiana State Planning 
Office, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1974. PCS Oil and Gas--An Environmental 
Assessment: A Report to the President . 5 volumes. Washington, D.C. 

Exxon Production Research Company, 1976. Deepwater Capabilities . New York, 
New York. 

Gillman, Katherine. 1977. Oil and Gas in Coastal Lands and Waters . 

Council on Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C. U.S. Government 
Printing Office. 

Kilpatrick, J. E. 1975. The Role of North Carolina in Regulating Offshore 
Petroleum Development . UNC Sea Grant Program, N.C. State University, 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. 1976. Effects of 

Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Development in the Coastal Zone . Prepared 
for the Ad Hoc Select Committee on Outer Continental Shelf. Washington, 
D.C: House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session. 

Macpherson, G. S. , and Bookman, C. A. 1979. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and 
Gas Activities in the Mid-Atlantic and Their Onshore Impacts: A Summary 
Report . Prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior Geological Survey in 
Cooperation with Council on Environmental Quality. U.S. Geological 
Survey Open File Report 80-17. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Management Consultant Services. 1974. Construction Impact Study . Prepared 
for the Construction Impact Group. Seattle, Washington. 

Marine Affairs Office, North Carolina Department of Administration. 1976. 
The North Carolina Petrocomplex Study . For the North Carolina Depart- 
ment of Natural and Economic Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. 



64 



Marcus, Phillip; Smith, Ethan T. ; Robertson, Sidney A.; Wong, Albert T. 

1977. DEROCS: Development of Energy Resources on the Outer Continen- 
tal Shelf: A Computer Program to Simulate Offshore Energy Development 
Scenarios and Onshore Service Base Requirements . United States Geo- 
logical Survey Open File Report 77-130. Washington, D.C. 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1974. Primary, Physical Impacts of 
Offshore Petroleum Developments . Prepared for the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration. Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

National Supply Company. 1979. Oil and Gas Pocket Reference 1979 . Houston, 
Texas. 

New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Factbook . NERBC and U.S.G.S. 
Resource and Land Investigations. Boston, Massachusetts. 

North Carolina Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs. 

1976. "Planning for North Carolina's OCS." Bibliographies with abstracts. 
Developed with U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmos- 
pheric Administration grant # 04-6-158-44095. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Administration, Office of Marine Affairs. 

1976. The North Carolina Petrocomplex Study . Prepared for the North 
Carolina Department of Natural and Economic Resources. Raleigh, North 
Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Energy Division, 
Allocations Section. 1975. North Carolina Petroleum Distribution . 
Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Petroleum Extension Service, The University of Texas. 1976. A Primer of 
Offshore Operations, First Edition . Austin, Texas. 

Pipeline Planning Committee, Pipeline Division of American Society of Civil 
Engineers. Final Report of the Task Committee on Pipeline in the 
Ocean . New York. 

Robert R. Nathan Associates and Coastal Zone Resources Commission. 1975 

The Coastal Plains Deepwater Terminal Study . Wilmington, North Carolina. 

United States Department of the Interior. 1976. The Outer Continental Shelf 
Oil and Gas Development Process: A Background Paper for State Planners 
and Managers . Bureau of Land Management, United States Department of 
the Interior. 

United States Department of the Interior. 1978. Study Design for Resource 
Management Decisions: OCS Oil and Gas Development and the Environment . 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. 
Draft EIS for Proposed 1981 Outer Continental Shelf, Oil and Gas 
Lease Sale No. 56. New Orleans, Louisiana. 



65 



U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Zone Management Office and Bureau of 
Land Management. 1977. State Information Needs Related to Onshore 
and Nearshore Effects of PCS Petroleum Development . 

Roy J. Weston, Inc. 1978. Methodology for Assessing Onshore Impacts for 
O.C.S. Oil and Gas Development . West Chester, Pennsylvania. 

Williams, D. C. 1976. Rapid Growth from Energy Projects: Ideas for 

State and Local Action . Prepared for the Office of Community Planning 
and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development. Washington, 
D.C. 

Williams, David C. , and Horn, Kathleen B. 1979. Onshore Impacts of Offshore 
Oil: A User's Guide to Assessment Methods . Prepared for Department 
of the Interior, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington, D.C. 

Williams, David C. , and Zinn, Jeffrey A. 1977. Sourcebook: Onshore 

Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Development . Pripared 
by the Conservation Foundation for the American Society of Planning 
Officials. 



COAL 

Alla-Ohio Valley Coals, Inc. 1980. "Proposed Coal Facility Development." 
Minutes of Citizens' Meeting. Morehead City, North Carolina. 

Baker, C. R. , and Hensley, C. 1981. "Financing Coal and Coal Handling 

Facilities." Prepared for the American Association of Port Authorities, 
Coal and Ports Seminar. Mobile, Alabama. 

Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad. 1979. Bessemer Coal Manual, 1979 . Pitts- 
burgh, Pennsylvania. 

Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. 1976. A Procedures Manual for Assessing 
the Socioeconomic Impact of the Construction and Operation of Coal 
Utilization Facilities in the Old West Region . Prepared for the Old 
West Regional Commission. Washington, D.C. 

Campbell, T. C. "Coming: New Coal Transportation Modes," Mechanical 
Engineering, Vol. 101, No. 9. September 1979. 

Coal: 1985 and Beyond . 1978. Published for the United Nations. New York: 
Pergamon Press. 

Coal Exporters Association. 1980. Report on Coal Export Port Capacity 
and Port Congestion . Washington, D.C. 

Coal Exporters Association. 1980. The United States in the World Coal 
Market. Washington, D.C. 



66 



Ebling, K. 1979. Multi-Modal Analysis of the National Coal Transportation 
System . Paper prepared for the Conference on Coal Transportation, 
Arlington, Virginia. 

Exxon Corporation. 1977. Coal: Energy Bridge to the Future . New York, 
New York. 

Fettweis, Gunter B. 1979. World Coal Resources Methods of Assessment and 
Results . Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. New York, New York. 

Forbes . "Shaping Up to Ship Out." February 16, 1981. 

Harvey, C. E. 1980. Revitalization of Port Capacity and the Foreign Demand 
for United States Coal . Paper prepared for the Transportation Freight 
Conference. Baltimore, Maryland. 

Interagency Coal Export Task Force. "Report on Ports and Ocean Transpor- 
tation." December 1, 1980. 

Journal of Commerce . "Strong Demand for Steam Coal Expected Abroad." 
February 17, 1981. 

Lin, King. 1980. Coal Traffic Annual, 1979 . National Coal Association. 
Washington, DC. 

Maritime Transportation Research Board, Commission on Sociotechnical Systems, 
National Research Council. 1979. Critical Issues in Coal Transporta- 
tion Systems: Proceedings of Symposium . National Academy of Sciences. 
Washington, D.C. 

McGraw-Hill Mining Information Services. 1980. 1980 Keystone Coal Industry 
Manual . New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. 

Coal Age . "Port Traffic." November 1980. 

National Coal Association. 1975. Coal Facts 1974-1975 . Washington, D.C. 

National Coal Association. 1979. Coal Facts, 1978-9. Washington, D.C. 

Noyes, Robert, ed. 1978. Coal Resources, Characteristics and Ownership in 
the U.S.A. Noyes Data Corporation. Park Ridge, New Jersey. 

Pel ham, L. 1980. The Environmental Impact on Coal Transfer and Terminal 
Operations . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/7-80-169. 
Cincinnati, Ohio. 

Proceedings of the Conference on Coal Transportation . October 14-15, 1980. 
Arlington, Virginia. 

Proceedings, Transportation Freight Service Conference . October 15, 1980. 
Baltimore, Maryland. 



67 



Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina State University and Appalachian 
Regional Commission. 1977. An Assessment of the Effects of Coal 
Movement on the Highways in the Appalachian Region . Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina. 

Schwartz, G. G. 1980. Economic Revitalization and Port Development . 
Paper prepared for the Transportation Freight Service Conference, 
October 15, 1980. Baltimore, Maryland. 

Szabo, M. F. 1978. Environmental Assessment of Coal Transportation . U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-600/7-78-081. Cincinnati , Ohio. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration; 
Department of Energy; Department of Transportation. 1980. Moving 
Coal to United States Export Markets: An Assessment of the Transpor- 
tation System's Capability to Handle Future Coal Traffic . Draft Report. 
Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. 1975. "Long Distance 
Coal Transport: Unit Trains or Slurry Pipelines." Bureau of Mines. 
Circular No. 8690. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, and U.S. Depart- 
ment of Energy, Office of the Secretary. 1980. National Energy Trans- 
portation Study . A Preliminary Report to the President. Washington, 
D.C. 

Wilson, C. L. 1980. Coal-Bridge to the Future: Report of the World Coal 
Study . Cambridge, Massachusetts. Bal linger Publishing Company. 

NORTH CAROLINA ENERGY STATISTICS 

Environmental Studies Council, University of North Carolina. 1978. Energy 
Technologies and Policies for North Carolina: Conference Proceedings . 

North Carolina Department of Administraton, Division of State Budget and 

Planning, Research and Planning Services. North Carolina State Govern- 
ment Statistical Abstract ; Fourth Edition. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Commerce, North Carolina Energy Institute. 
1979. Anuual Report-1979 . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Commerce. 1980. The North Carolina Industrial 
Data File. A Concise Presentation of North Carolina's Resources for 
Plant Location Decision Makers . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Utilities Commission. 1979. 1978 Report-Vol. XII. Statis- 
tical and Analytical Data Through 1976 . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Research and Planning Services Division of State Budget and Management. 
1979. North Carolina State Government Statistical Abstract . Fourth 
Edition. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

68 



Research and Planning Services Office of State Budget and Management. 1980. 
1980 North Carolina Statistical Guide . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Researc h Triangle Institute, The Center for Development and Resource Planning, 
and North Carolina Department of Administration. 1974. Final Report. 
A State Energy Management Plan for North Carolina. Phase I: A Quanti- 
tative Description of the Current Situation and Analysis of the Determi- 
nants and Consequences of Future Energy Use . Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina. 



ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND STUDIES 

Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the President. 1978. 
Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act . 

Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1980. Coastal Effects of Coal Transship- 
ments in Michigan: An Evaluation Survey . Prepared for the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources. 

Little, Arthur D. and Co. 1973. Potential Onshore Effects of Deepwater 
Ports . NTIS (PB 224 018). Springfield, Virginia. For Council on 
Environmental Quality. 

Neal , Leon. 1975. Impact of Continental Shelf Development . North Carolina 
Science and Technology Research. 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources, North Carolina Sedimentation 
Control Commission. Rules and Regulations for Erosion and Sediment 
Control ■ Promulgated Pursuant to Provisions contained in Sedimentation 
Pollution Control Act of 1973. (GS chapter 113A, Article 4). 

North Carolina Department of Transportaton, Division of Highways. 1978. 
Final Environmental Statement: Marine Maintenance Facility, Manns 
Harbor, Dare County . July 1978. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Unit. 1978. 
"Executive Order 11990-Protection of Wetlands-Revised Guidance and 
Prcedures.": December 21, 1978. Memo to Project Engineers. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Unit. 1979. 
"Coastal Area Management Act.": December 6, 1979. Memo to Project 
Engineers. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Environmental Unit. 1980. 
"Procedures to Follow to Comply with the Endangered Species Act-1978 
Amendments.": February 18, 1980. Memo to Project Engineers. 

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division. 
1981. "Coal Train Movements Through the City of New Bern." Working 
paper. 



69 



"Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts; Policies and Procedures." 
Federal Register . Vol. 44, No. 191. Monday, October 1, 1979. 

Schoebaum, Thomas J., and Silliman, Kenneth G. 1976. Coastal Planning: 
The Designation and Management of Areas of Critical Environmental 
Concern . Raleigh, North Carolina: UNC Sea Grant Program. 

Shuldiner, P. W. ; Cope, D. F. ; and Newton, R. B. 1979. National Coopera- 
tive Highway Research Program Report 218 B: Ecological Effects of 
Highway Fills on Wetlands, User's Manual . Transportation Research 
Board. Washington, D.C. 

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, and North Carolina 
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North 
Carolina Coastal Management Program. Final Environmental Impact 
Statement: Proposed Coastal Management Program for the State of North 
Carol ina . 

United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, and North Carolina 
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, North 
Carolina Coastal Management Program. Final Environmental Impact State- 
ment: Proposed Costal Management Program for the State of North Carolina . 
Appendices. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1977. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 43 . New 
Orleans, Lousiana. 

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1981. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 56 . New 
Orleans, Lousiana. 

WATER RESOURCES 

Howells, David H. 1976. Water Resource Problems and Research Needs of 
North Carolina . Raleigh, North Carolina: Water Resources Research 
Institute of the University of North Carolina. 

McJenkin, Frederick Eugene; Coe, Mary Jordan; and Knarr, Bruce Allen. 1968. 
Water Resources of North Carolina: An Inventory of Information and 
Data. Report #22. Raleigh, North Carolina: Water Resources Research 
Institute. 

National Association of Conservation Districts. 1979. The Role of Conserva- 
tion Districts in the Coastal Zone Management Program . Written and 
compiled under contract from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, United States Department 
of Commerce. 



70 



North Carolina Department of Administration, North Carolina Marine Science 
Council. 1972. North Carolina's Coastal Resources: A Preliminary 
Planning Report for Marine and Coastal Resource Development in North 
Carolina . Raleigh, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 
1977. Public Water Supplies of North Carolina. North Coastal Region . 
South Coastal Region . 

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 
Coastal Management . Subchapter 7J--Procedures for Handling Major 
Development Permits, Variance Requests, and Appeals from Minor Develop- 
ment Permit Decisions. Raleigh, North Carolina. 

Record of the First Annual Review Conference on Marine Resources Develop- 
ment . December 7-8, 1978. Charleston, South Carolina. Sponsored by 
the Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Service. 

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States . 
December 6-7, 1979. Wilmington, North Carolina. Sponsored by the 
Coastal Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States . 
December 9-10, 1976. Jacksonville, Florida. Sponsored by the Coastal 
Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States . 
December 11-12, 1975. Savannah, Georgia. Sponsored by the Coastal 
Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 

Report of the Conference on Marine Resources of the Coastal Plains States . 
December 8-19, 1977. Williamsburg, Virginia. Sponsored by the Coastal 
Plains Center for Marine Development Services. 

Stream Channelization and Wetland Drainage . 1970. Proceedings of workshop 
sponsored by North Carolina Department of Water and Air Resources and 
Water Resources Research Institute held at Rougemont, North Carolina. 
Raleigh, North Carolina. Report #45. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1979. Water Resources Development. 
North Carolina . 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 1975. An Assessment of Estuarine 
and Nearshore Marine Environments . Gloucester Point, Virginia: 
Virginia Institute of Marine Science. 

Wurfel , Seymour W. , Principal Investigaqtor. 1974. Emerging Ocean Oil 

and Mining Law . Raleigh, North Carolina. UNC Sea Grant Program, N.C. 
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 



71 



LAND USE PLANS 

Camden County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Camden County Land Use Plan 
1975-1985. Camden County, North Carolina. 

Camden County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Camden County Land Use Plan 
Synopsis . Camden County, North Carolina. 

Dare County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act: 
Dare County Land Development Plan . Manteo, North Carolina. 

Dare County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Dare County Land Use Plan: 
Summary . Manteo, North Carolina. 

Hyde County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act: 

Land Development Plan for Hyde County, A. Swan Quarter, North Carolina. 

Hyde County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Hyde County Land Use Plan: 
Summary . Swan Quarter, North Carolina. 

Mid-East Commission. 1976. Overall Economic Development Program Update . 
Washington, North Carolina. 

Neuse River Council of Governments, Division of Planning and Management. 

1976. Craven County Land Development Plan . New Bern, North Carolina. 

North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission. 1978. Coastal Area Manage- 
ment Act: Land Use Plan, Carteret County, North Carolina . Raleigh, 
North Carolina. 

North Carolina Outdoor Recreation Plan: Summary . 1970. Raleigh, North 
Carolina. 

Onslow County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act: 
Land Use Plan. Onslow County, North Carolina . Jacksonville, North 
Carolina. 

Onslow County Planning Department. 1976. Onslow County Land Use Plan: 
Summary . Jacksonville, North Carolina. 

Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Pasquotank County Land 
Use Plan: Synopsis . Elizabeth City, North Carolina. 

Pasquotank County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Pasquotank County, 
North Carolina: Land Use Plan, 1975-1985. Elizabeth City, North 
Carolina. 

Reeves, Lenora, ed. 1979. The Mid-East Commission, Annual Report, 1978- 
1979. Washington, North Carolina. 



72 



Tyrrell County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Coastal Area Management Act: 
Tyrrell County Land Development Plan . Columbia, North Carolina. 

Tyrrell County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Tyrrell County Land Use Plan: 
Summary . Columbia, North Carolina. 

Washington County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Washington County Land 
Use Plan. Plymouth, North Carolina. 

Washington County Board of Commissioners. 1976. Washington County Land 
Use Plan: Summary . Plymouth, North Carolina. 

Wilmington-New Hanover Planning Department. 1976. Coastal Area Manage- 
ment Act: Land Use Plan V . Wilmington, North Carolina. 

Wilmington-New Hanover Planning Department. 1976. Wilmington-New Hanover 
County Land Use Plan: Summary . Wilmington, North Carolina. 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND DATA SOURCES 

American Waterways Operators, Inc. 1970. The Barge and Touring Industry 
Catalog of Publications, Films and Information Resources . Washington, 
D.C. 

Clay, James W. , Orr, Douglas M. , and Stuart, Alfred W. , eds. 1975. North 
Carolina Atlas: Portrait of a Changing Southern State . Chapel Hill, 
North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. 

Emmett, Robert C. 1978. The Transportation of Energy Materials in the United 
States: A Bibliography . Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern Unversity 
Transportation Library. Prepared for Argonne Laboratory, Energy and 
Environmental Systems Division Transportation Energy Systems Section. 

Garrett, Wilbur E. , ed. 1981. "Energy: Facing Up to the Problem, Getting 
Down to Solutions." National Geographic Special Report, February 1981 . 
Washington, D.C. 

Savannah River Laboratory, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. 1977. The 
North Carolina Costal Zone and Its Environment: A Compilation of 
Resource Materials Covering the Costal Plain, Estuaries, and Offshore 
Waters . Prepared for the United States Department of Energy. 

UNC Sea Grant Program, 1980. Publications List . North Carolina State 
University, Raleigh, North Carolina. 

UNC-CH Center for Urban Studies, 1981. Outer Continental Shelf Development 
and the North Carolina Coast: A Guide for Local Planners, Annotated 
Bibliography, UNC-Chapel Hill. 



73 



STATE LIBRARY OF NORTH CAROLINA 



3 3091 00748 0494 



CEIP Publications 

1. Hauser, E. W. , P. D. Cribbins, P. D. Tschetter, and R. D. Latta. 
Coastal Energy Transportation Needs to Support Major Energy Projects 
in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #1. September 1981. 
$10. 

2. P. D. Cribbins. A Study of OCS Onshore Support Bases and Coal Export 
Terminals. CEIP Report //2. September 1981, $10. 

3. Tschetter, P. D., M. Fisch, and R. D. Latta. An Assessment of 
Potential Impacts of Energy-Related Transportation Developments 

on North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #3. September 1981. 
$10. (Available spring 1982) 

4. Cribbins, P. S. An Analysis of State and Federal Policies Affecting 
Major Energy Projects in North Carolina's Coastal Zone. CEIP Report #4. 
September 1981. $10. 

5. Brower, David, W. D. McElyea, D. R. Godschalk, and N. D. Lofaro. 
Outer Continental Shelf Development and the North Carolina Coast: 
A Guide for Local Planners. CEIP Report #5. August 1981. $10. 

6. Rogers, Golden and Halpern, Inc., and Engineers for Energy and the Environment, 
Inc. Mitigating the Impacts of Energy Facilities; A Local Air Quality Program 
for the Wilmington, N.C. Area. CEIP Report #6. September 1981. $10. 

7. Richardson, C. J. (editor). Pocosin Wetlands: an Integrated Analysis 
of Coastal Plain Freshwater Bogs in North Carolina. Stroudsburg (Pa): 
Hutchinson Ross. 364 pp. $25. Available from School of Forestry, 
Duke University, Durham, N. C. 27709. (This proceedings volume is 
for a conference partially funded by N. C. CEIP. It replaces the 

N. C. Peat Sourcebook in this publication list.) 

8. McDonald, C, B., and A. M. Ash. Natural Areas Inventory of Tyrrell 
County, N. C. CEIP Report #8. October 1981. $10 for all requests. 

9. Fussell, J., and E. J. Wilson. Natural Areas Inventory of Carteret 
County, N. C. CEIP Report #9. October 1981. $10 for all requests. 

10. Nyfong, T. D. Natural Areas Inventory of Brunswick County, N. C. 
CEIP Report #10. October 1981. $10 for all requests. 

11. Leonard, S. W., and R. J. Davis. Natural Areas Inventory for Pender 
County, N. C. CEIP Report #11. October 1981. $10 for all requests. 

NOTE: Please note renumbering of reports 5-10,